S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Foreign travelling expenditure of daughter-borne by husband-Personal use of vehicle-Addition was deleted. [S. 132]
Lakhvir Kaur. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 39 (Chd) (Trib.)S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Foreign travelling expenditure of daughter-borne by husband-Personal use of vehicle-Addition was deleted. [S. 132]
Lakhvir Kaur. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 39 (Chd) (Trib.)S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposits-Additional evidence-Matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. [S. 147]
Chinthalapudi Ramakrishna. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 222 (Hyd) (Trib.)S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposits-Past disclosures and withdrawals-Addition was sustained to the extent of Rs 10 lakhs.[S.44AE]
Renu Vinod Kaushal. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 12 (Ahd) (Trib.)S. 69: Unexplained investment-Bonds/Debenture-Investment was made from her daughter’s bank account, where she was a nominee-Addition was deleted.
Renu Vinod Kaushal. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 12 (Ahd) (Trib.)S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Jewellery-Jewellery bills found during search were not substantial-Poultry Farm Sale-Photocopy of an agreement to sell, allegedly retrieved from WhatsApp chat-Statement of buyer was not recorded-Additions on account were unjustified.[S. 131(IA), 132]
Lakhvir Kaur. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 39 (Chd) (Trib.)S. 69: Unexplained investments-Investment in plot of land-Unsigned agreement to sell-Property continued to remain in the name of seller-Addition was deleted. [S. 132, 153A]
Balwant Singh. v. DCIT 2025) 215 ITD 64 (Chd) (Trib.)S. 68: Cash credits-Capital is recorded through a proper banking channel-Capital introduced by a partner in the firm-No addition can be made in the hands of the firm.[S. 2(31)(iv), 133(6)]
ITO v. Goodfarm Rearing (Ahd.)(Trib.)(UR)S. 68: Cash credits-Conversion of private limited company into LLP-The transfer of share capital and reserves to partners’ accounts upon conversion-The addition was not justified since the nature and source of the credit were not explained. [S. 47(xiiib)(f), 115BBE]
ITO v. NICAF LLP [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1001(Mum) (Trib.)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)]
Dy. CIT v. A.A. International (Mum)(Trib.)(UR)S. 68: Cash credits-Additional evidence-Matter remanded to the CIT(A). [ITAT R. 46A]
Matrix Automotive. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 651 (Mum) (Trib.)