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 Ahmedabad allowed revenue’s appeal by concluding that approach of CIT(A) in singularly dismissing each piece of evidence, we find, is totally incorrect. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter of bogus accommodation entry afresh.
The Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition or disallowance on the issues as the Assessing Officer was not supposed to examine any other issue except the issue for which the scrutiny assessment was ordered.
Kolkata Bench of ITAT ruled in ACIT Vs Pujita Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. that Section 68 of IT Act is applicable when credit is received in the relevant year not for earlier years.
As noticed earlier, the provisions of sec. 147 of the Act makes it mandatory that the AO should be clear about the alleged escapement of income while recording reasons for reopening of assessment.
ITAT Delhi remanded the matter back to CIT(A) since CIT(A) failed to examined the validity of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT(A) rightly allowed interest earned from a co-operative bank as eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that no incriminating material found during course of search and assessment is completed during date of search hence addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance and procedural delay. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) set aside and matter remitted back to CIT(A).
ITAT order was based on the fact that assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions.
Delhi High Court held that assessee is entitled to confine the settlement of disputes which were subject matter of its appeal filed before appellate authority under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSV Act].
