Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Income Tax - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights July 2024 Year 2024 This

The Appellate Tribunal considered the legality of additions ...


The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on various additions, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence and fair treatment.

July 2, 2024

Case Laws     Income Tax     AT

The Appellate Tribunal considered the legality of additions based on a diary seized from a third party. The Tribunal held that the presumption u/s 132(4A) of the Act applies to the person in possession of incriminating material and cannot be extended to a third party without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The failure to provide cross-examination opportunity to the assessee based on third party statements led to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding unexplained expenses on a mobile purchase and investments in vehicles. Addition of interest income and unexplained investments were deleted due to lack of supporting evidence. The Tribunal further deleted additions related to unexplained expenditure on spectacles, mobile phones, marriage expenses, and foreign currency purchases. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and upheld the principles of natural justice throughout its decisions.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. Addition in assessment u/s 153C - Addition u/s 69 - addition on basis of loose papers on which name of the appellant was mentioned along with some other parties - The...

  2. The assessee's contentions were upheld by the Tribunal regarding various additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal ruled that the RTGS transfer from the...

  3. Validity of the order of ITAT deleting the various additions made by the AO - The appellant, Revenue, contested various additions made by the Assessing Officer,...

  4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) adjudicated on various additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained/bogus credits or trading liabilities. The...

  5. Addition u/s 68 - disclosure made by the assessee on the basis of documents impounded during the course of survey proceedings - The Tribunal deleted the addition holding...

  6. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in not allowing deduction u/s 10A on account of enhanced business profit. The Tribunal emphasized that an...

  7. The Appellate Tribunal addressed various issues: disallowance of provisions for waste disposal expenses due to lack of evidence and scientific basis, upheld disallowance...

  8. Validity of proceedings u/s 153C - The Tribunal upheld the proceedings u/s 153C, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s decision that the material seized during the search had a...

  9. 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...

  10. Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reason to believe - Addition u/s 69C on account of the capital introduced by the partner and unsecured loans - The Tribunal...

  11. The ITAT ruled on the addition u/s 68 of share capital/premium from three dummy entities related to RPS Group. The addition was substantive for RPS Group and protective...

  12. Assessment u/s 153C - undisclosed receipts as allegedly received by the assessee - reliance on the statement of persons (from whose possession the material was seized) -...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. The ITAT Mumbai addressed two key issues in the case. Firstly, regarding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the tribunal held that the absence of a tick mark on the notice did...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates