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...
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits during demonetization. Mere disclosure in books was insufficient without proof of genuineness and credibility.
The issue was whether reassessment under Section 147 is valid after a search. The ITAT held it invalid, ruling that only Section 153A applies post-search, making the reassessment void.
ITAT held spousal gift taxable under Section 68 due to lack of evidence on genuineness, bank trail, and donor capacity despite Section 56 exemption.
The case examined whether bank deposits could be taxed as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held that Section 68 applies only to entries in books of account, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without establishing the assessee as the actual beneficiary of cash credits. It upheld deletion where ownership was not proven.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in fully rejecting the assessee’s explanation linking cash deposits to business sales. However, due to incomplete substantiation, a limited addition of ₹8 lakh was sustained.
The Tribunal held that GST collected is not part of income for presumptive taxation under section 44B. It ruled that GST is a statutory levy and cannot be treated as revenue.
The issue was whether share capital addition could be sustained without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in absence of incriminating material, the addition under Section 68 is invalid.
The issue was whether additions could be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that such additions are invalid, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
The issue was whether cash deposits from business sales could be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. ITAT held that recorded cash sales forming part of turnover cannot be taxed as unexplained credits.
