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 ITAT Mumbai has set aside a tax order, remanding the ₹1.1 crore unexplained property investment case of Rajesh Laxmichand Jain back to the Assessing Officer for fresh review, citing procedural errors.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai dismisses the Revenue’s appeal, affirming the deletion of a ₹80 lakh unexplained investment addition.
ITAT Kolkata deleted the ₹1.31 lakh unexplained cash addition during demonetisation, ruling the deposit was reasonably sourced from the assessee’s disclosed rental income received in cash.
Ahmedabad ITAT overturns a tax disallowance of Rs. 6.78 lakh in cash deposits, accepting a farmer’s claim of income from agriculture, transportation, and family savings.
Somabhai Mohandas Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The case of Somabhai Mohandas Patel vs. ITO before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Ahmedabad involved an appeal by a taxpayer, Somabhai Mohandas Patel, against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) upholding the addition of ₹10,33,012 to his income. This addition was made […]
The ITAT Nagpur condoned a 489-day delay and, on merits, deleted an addition of ₹20,32,500 made under Section 69, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide substantive evidence or corroboration that the investment was made in the relevant assessment year, A.Y.
The ITAT Jaipur dismissed the assessee’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263. The Tribunal ruled that the income declared as excess stock during a survey must be taxed under Section 115BBE at a higher rate because the assessee failed to prove a direct nexus between the excess stock and suppressed regular business profits.
ITAT Visakhapatnam upholds additions for demonetisation deposits but rules tax under section 115BBE for AY 2017-18 should apply at 30% instead of 60%.
ITAT Delhi in RSWM Ltd. Khari Gram vs DCIT examines disputed additions under Section 69, allowability of education cess, and treatment of FPS/FMS, TUFS, and RIPS subsidies, emphasizing reliance on evidence and judicial precedents.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi has set aside a significant tax addition against Maple Destinations, ruling that the reassessment was based on uncorroborated, retracted statements and a denial of the assessee’s right to cross-examination, which violated principles of natural justice.
