Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
The ITAT Bangalore, in a case involving unexplained money u/s. 69A, addressed deposits in a bank account during the demonetisation period. The DR argued that the assessee failed to provide external evidence supporting the agricultural income declared. The tribunal noted the average agricultural income reported by the assessee for the previous three years. It observed that the AO had accepted the agricultural income while computing the total income, which is crucial for raising a demand u/s 156. Consequently, the AO could not treat it as unexplained investment u/s. 69A. The tribunal accepted the assessee's plea, considering the income as agricultural income and applying the normal tax rate. As the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs. 15,84,000 in the return, with a portion accepted by the ld. CIT (A), the remaining amount was also deemed agricultural income. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT Bangalore, in a case involving unexplained money u/s. 69A, addressed deposits in a bank account during the demonetisation period. The DR argued that the assessee failed to provide external evidence supporting the agricultural income declared. The tribunal noted the average agricultural income reported by the assessee for the previous three years. It observed that the AO had accepted the agricultural income while computing the total income, which is crucial for raising a demand u/s 156. Consequently, the AO could not treat it as unexplained investment u/s. 69A. The tribunal accepted the assessee's plea, considering the income as agricultural income and applying the normal tax rate. As the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs. 15,84,000 in the return, with a portion accepted by the ld. CIT (A), the remaining amount was also deemed agricultural income. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
