The Appellate Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 51.20 lacs ...

Unexplained investment discrepancy ruled in favor of assessee by appellate tribunal. No proof of payment, addition not justified.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 22, 2024

The Appellate Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 51.20 lacs as unexplained investment u/ss 69 or 56(2)(x)/6(2)(vii) was unjustified as there was no evidence of actual payment to vendors. Section 69 requires actual investment, not just stamp value. The lower authorities erred in making the addition, which is not taxable for a partnership firm u/s 56(2)(x) for the relevant assessment year. The decision favored the assessee, and the appeal was allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Appellate Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 51.20 lacs ...

Unexplained investment discrepancy ruled in favor of assessee by appellate tribunal. No proof of payment, addition not justified.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 22, 2024

You may also like:

The Appellate Tribunal considered unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal noted the assessee's agricultural income and expenses but found...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the validity of reopening assessment under section 147 and addition under section 69A. The Tribunal held that the AO had sufficient...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the claim of deduction u/s 32AD for additional investment allowance on an investment made in the financial year 2015-16. The issue arose...

Addition u/s. 69A - unexplained cash deposits in the bank account - The Tribunal found the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the sale consideration for real...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving a revision u/s 263 regarding the estimation of unexplained investment by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals, which exceeded 400 days, due to unexplained cash deposits and protective additions...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Transfer pricing adjustment - assessee advanced interest free loan to its AE - The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all...

Income–tax (10th Amendment) Rules, 2018 - Form of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the addition u/s 69 concerning unexplained investment. The issue stemmed from an agreement displaying the individual name of the...

Addition u/s 69B r.w.s.115BBE - during the course of survey action discrepancies were found on account of physical verification of stock vis-a-vis regular books of...

Power of tribunal to review application - It is the well laid down proposition of law that ‘in the absence of any power of ‘Review’ or ‘Recall’ vested with the...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(C) for non-filing of income tax return despite taxable income and interest income. Assessee...

In the ITAT Delhi case, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on two key issues. Firstly, regarding unexplained cash deposits u/s 68, the AO's failure to...

Unexplained investment u/s 69 – Assessee paid up additional stamp duty on valuation - This by itself would not mean that the assessee made any unexplained investment - HC

Quick Updates: