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 issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice...
Income Tax : The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material directly connecting the assessee to alleged ca...
Income Tax : The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. I...
ITAT Ahmedabad refers Rs. 99.52 lakh addition under Section 69 to AO for fresh examination. Case pertains to unexplained loans in Dharmendrasinh Chudasama vs ITO.
ITAT Ahmedabad order in Maheshbhai Nagjibhai Desai Vs ITO case, addressing reopening under Section 147 and unexplained investments under Section 69.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands case on unexplained investments of ₹18.19L in land & shares. Tribunal directs re-examination by AO after Assessee presents evidence.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without providing an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine the person whose statement was relied upon is untenable in law and hence liable to be deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards cash deposit in bank account u/s. 69A as unexplained liable to be deleted since assessee satisfactorily explained the source. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Jaipur held that taxability of surrendered undisclosed income under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act requires verification on the part of the AO. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of AO.
ITAT Delhi remands the case of Rs. 29.32 lakh unexplained investment back to CIT(A) due to inadequate reasoning and lack of detailed discussion.
Finally, ITAT observed that it is not clear from the order of CIT(A) whether any specific notices on specified dates have been issued to the assessee or service of the notices were properly done or not. CIT (A) did not decide the case on merits.
Reliance was placed on decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in ITA No. 325/2008 and it was argued that no addition u/s 68 could be made on account of trade creditors when the books of accounts have not been rejected.
Assessee was a illiterate farmer. Assessment was completed by making an addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- u/s 69 on account of purchase of immovable property. Assessment order as well as CIT (A) order, dismissing the appeal, were passed ex-parte.
