Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT v. A.A. International (Mum)(Trib.)(UR)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Firm-Partners-Once partners’ identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of capital contribution are established through evidence, addition u/s 68 cannot be made in the firm’s hands, as the firm is not required to explain the source of partners’ funds.[S. 2(31)(iv)]

Matrix Automotive. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 651 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 68: Cash credits-Additional evidence-Matter remanded to the CIT(A). [ITAT R. 46A]

Khandelwal Industries. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 667 (Raipur) (Trib.)

S. 68: Cash credits-Partner’s capital-Cash flow and bank statements-Addition was deleted. [S.115BBE]

Anju Parekh. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 639 (SMC) (Raipur) (Trib.)

S. 68: Cash credits-Sale of shares-Penny stock-Investigation Wing/SEBI reports-Bogus long term capital gains-Accommodation entries-NCL Research & Finance Services Pvt Ltd-Shares through stock exchange-Paid STT, Disclosed transaction in return-Held shares in demat account-routed Payments through banks-Sale proceeds cannot be assessed as cash credits-Eligible for exemption-Addition of unexplained expenditure was also deleted. [S. 10(38), 45, 69C]

Deb Prasanna Choudhury. v. ADIT (2025) 215 ITD 675 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 56: Income from other sources-Gift-Brother-in-law (spouse of his sister)-through NRE account-Source of amount being from a relative-Amount was not liable to be included in the total income of assessee.[S. 56(2)(x)]

ACIT, Central Circle. v. Sanghvi Beauty and Technologies (P.) Ltd. (2025) 215 ITD 588 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 56: Income from other sources-Income from other sources-Shares at premium-Cash flow method-Matter was to be restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.[S.56(2)(viib)]

ACIT v. Chenani Nashri Tunnelway Ltd. (2025) 215 ITD 197 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 56: Income from other sources-Interest-Highway project-Temporary parking of such funds in short-term deposits, interest earned thereon being inextricably linked with setting up of infrastructure facility was capital in nature and to be reduced from capital work-in-progress.[S. 4, 37(1)]

ITO v. Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel. (2025) 215 ITD 565 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 54B: Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-Co-owner-Order of CIT(A), merely relying upon the decision of the co-owner without verifying distinguishing facts recorded by the Assessing Officer, was set aside and restored to him for decision afresh.[S. 45]

Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 282 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 54: Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Property is purchased in the name of spouse-Exemption cannot be denied.[S. 45]

Yogesh Mutha. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 87 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 54: Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Construction of house-Purchase of land with construction of house-matter was to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh.[S. 45, 54F]