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 Kolkata held that the reopening of assessment cannot be allowed on the basis of vague reasons, where AO has not done anything as there was gross non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, reopening of assessment u/s. 147 is quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that reopening under section 148 r.w.s. 148A is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed in as much as reopening was merely on the basis of change of opinion. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and reopening quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere non-appearance of directors is no basis for invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition towards share application money and share premium is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Kolkata rules addition under Section 68 for share capital invalid solely due to non-compliance with summons when evidence was furnished.
Kolkata ITAT removes Rs 1.43 crore addition on share capital, citing funds received in prior years and adequate documentation for current year’s receipts.
ITAT Mumbai held that the cash deposited is out of the gross receipts and that once gross receipts are disputed then no addition is sustainable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent and addition deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that the transaction cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since the transaction of the shares were shown as stock in trade in assets side of the balance sheet and sale as revenue in profit & loss account.
Calcutta High Court held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards bogus share capital and share premium duly deleted by CIT(A) since identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers alongwith genuineness of transactions duly proved.
Delhi ITAT rules against tax addition of Rs. 24 lakh for Cumin Infotech, citing lack of justification from AO for rejecting assessee’s cash deposit explanation.
Ahmedabad ITAT sends back tax case to CIT(A) after significant additions for cash deposits and unsecured loans were deleted without obtaining the Assessing Officer’s remand report.
