Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : A doctrinal analysis of unexplained cash credits, investments, and expenditure under Sections 68–69D. Explains burden of proof a...
Income Tax : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra paymen...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that stamp duty valuation could not be blindly adopted where the property was affected by BBMP demolition proceeding...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Rs.6 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the share sale transactions were prope...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that entries found in third-party ERP software during a search cannot alone justify unexplained investment addit...
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, including a ₹75 lakh unexplained cash advance addition, after finding that the earlier dismissal was based purely on a procedural technicality. The ruling emphasizes that the CIT(A) must use their wide powers to adjudicate on merits and cannot reject an appeal at the threshold.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside and matter is remanded back to AO since additional evidences submitted by the assessee needs to be verified by lower authorities.
ITAT Hyderabad sustains unexplained investment based on a builder’s seized document with matching sale details but deletes gift addition, citing the Revenue’s failure to disprove the donor’s capacity.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled that protective additions made in reassessment proceedings are invalid because they did not co-exist with a substantive addition for the same assessment year. The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot stand in isolation and cannot be based on mere suspicion to keep a hypothetical option open for the Revenue.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a cryptic CIT(A) order and remanded the entire case to the AO, directing a de novo inquiry into unexplained fixed deposits, cash, and flat investment after admitting new bank certificates and considering natural justice principles.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed source of income cannot be sustained merely because this amount is not reported in Tax Audit Report since transaction is duly recorded in books of accounts.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition made by application of provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act justifiable since SRO rates rightly adopted in absence of any objection from assessee company.
Mumbai ITAT quashes ₹1.76 Cr unexplained investment tax on NRI homemaker, ruling joint registration doesn’t justify addition when funds came solely from husband.
Bangalore ITAT deletes unexplained cash addition of Rs.2 lakhs for a student assessee, ruling the scrutiny itself violated CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017, which exempts individuals without business income from verification for deposits up to Rs.2.5 lakhs.
A summary of ITAT Chennai’s order in Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy Vs ITO, which sustained both unexplained investment under Section 69 and professional receipts found via Form 26AS but not declared in income tax return.
