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...
Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
Explore the ITAT Jaipur decision in Mujmmeel Vs ACIT, examining Section 263 order invoking unexplained investments and its implications on tax assessments.
Delhi HC dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming that cash sales during demonetization, accounted for and taxed, cannot be treated as unexplained income u/s 68.
Delhi High Court held that approval accorded in terms of section 153D of the Income Tax Act in a mechanical manner without application of mind is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and assessment order quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan is untenable since loans accepted were repaid in the same year and all the transactions were carried out through banking channels. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Addition made in the case of assessee was held to be unjustified. Assessee had established and satisfied all the three ingredients being identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of share capital contribution to explain credit in terms of provisions of section 68.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd., deleting ₹25 lakh addition under Section 68. The loan from promoters was found genuine.
ITAT Rajkot remanded the matter as lower authority has not exercised their power to enquiry in section 131 and 133(6) of the Act to verify the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the party in case of addition towards unsecured loan u/s. 68.
ITAT Rajkot held that addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be deleted since assessee sufficiently proved that all the payments are made from wife’s NRI account.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee has duly explained the source of his share of the investment made in the property purchased. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act is directed to be deleted.
