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...
Read about ITAT Cochin’s decision in Prabheesh Nair vs. ITO, where court set aside a tax appeal dismissal and mandated a new hearing, underscoring legal requirement for appellate authorities to pass reasoned orders.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were explained as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and household savings, and deleted the addition of ₹10,46,500 made under section 69A.
Revenue argued that since assessee was an “eligible assessee” under section 144C(15), AO rightly passed the order and the final order was valid within the time limit of section 153(4). On appeal.
The Patna ITAT holds that Section 69 applies even without books of account, but remands a case for fresh verification after the assessee provided new evidence of earlier cash payments.
ITAT Chennai held that the amount gifted by the brother cannot be treated as unexplained. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act deleted to that extent. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
The ITAT has set aside a penalty order against a taxpayer, Murmu Pankaj Kumar, ruling it was premature as the core quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A).
Jai Prakash Virmani Vs DCIT/ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi Holds Additional Income Applied Towards House Construction Cannot be Taxed Again as Unexplained Investment – Section 69 & 115BBE Not Applicable A survey u/s 133A was conducted at Assessee’s business premises on 23.01.2019. Loose papers indicating cash withdrawals & expenditure on construction of house were impounded. […]
Additions made under section 69A against assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2011-12 to 2018-19 was deleted as proceedings initiated on the basis of seized documents which did not mention assessee’s name were unsustainable.
Gujarat High Court upholds deletion of ₹11.57 crore addition, ruling that repayment of loan within the same financial year proves its genuineness.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has sent a cash deposit addition case back to the Assessing Officer for review, citing new evidence including a joint bank account with an agriculturist father and an affidavit.
