Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that profit cannot be estimated arbitrarily when regular books of account are maintained and not rejected unde...
Income Tax : A large spousal gift exemption was denied due to failure in proving genuineness, creditworthiness, and source of funds. The ruling...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : ITAT held spousal gift taxable under Section 68 due to lack of evidence on genuineness, bank trail, and donor capacity despite Sec...
Finance : The Supreme Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister despite objections from his wife and children. The C...
Income Tax : Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subse...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court ruled that while authorities could verify documents during transit, absence of an e-Tax Invoice did not confe...
Income Tax : The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the unsecured loan along with interest after deducting TDS and the lender had o...
Income Tax : Tribunal ruled that future projections under DCF method cannot be tested solely against later actual financial performance. It obs...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
ITAT Chandigarh deletes a Section 68 addition on share capital, ruling that a listed company is not required to prove a source of source for investment.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be added as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since sufficient explanation of source of cash deposit provided by the assessee. Accordingly, addition deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi sends Anil Kumar Chauhan’s Rs. 7.17 Cr. tax addition case back to the AO. The tribunal cited a violation of natural justice, allowing new evidence.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revenue appeal, upholding the ITAT’s order to delete an addition under Section 68. The court found no question of law.
ITAT Surat held that addition of unexplained stock as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act upheld due to claim of closing stock was not supported by any verifiable evidences. Accordingly, ground of appellant dismissed.
The Mumbai ITAT ruled that a tax reassessment on alleged bogus capital gains was invalid, citing the lack of specific incriminating evidence found during the search.
ITAT Delhi upheld the disallowance of setting off brought-forward business losses against short-term capital gains from the sale of depreciated assets, clarifying the inapplicability of Section 41(2).
The ITAT Delhi deleted a demonetisation-related cash deposit addition for a jeweller, ruling that Section 68 doesn’t apply to recorded sales and that a profit cannot be taxed twice.
Addition of cash withdrawal under Section 69C in relation to the legitimate gold loan intermediary business was not justified observing that the documentary evidence including gold loan recorded validated gold loan business, thus there was no unexplained nature in the withdrawal.
ITAT Delhi held that approval granted under section 151 of the Income Tax Act in mechanical manner without application of mind hence reopening of assessment based on such mechanical order is liable to be quashed.
