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 evidences relied upon by AO in the form of excel sheets did not constitute adequate evidence to draw adverse inference against tassessee, in the absence of any other corroborative evidences.
Assessee was a private limited company registered as a non-banking finance company (NBFC) with the RBI, engaged in providing loans, advances, and dealing in shares and securities.
The petitioner is a legal heir of late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh who filed the original return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31.08.2015. Late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh expired on 30.09.2019.
However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued and therefore, AO completed the scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee for the AY 2017-18 as best judgment assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and passed the assessment order.
ITAT Jaipur allowed Naval Kishore’s appeal, ruling that no additions could be made under Section 153A, as no incriminating material was found during the search.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan sustained as creditworthiness of the lender not proved. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee dismissed.
The onus was on assessee to demonstrate the extent of such assets which could be explained as having been acquired through funds which had been disclosed to the Department.
ITAT Delhi held that error of bringing an amount of Rs.12,10,692/- to tax instead of the undisclosed amount of Rs.27,00,00,000/- is assessment made without proper enquiry and hence assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue so revision order u/s. 263 sustained.
The failure of assessee to make the requisite disclosures in Schedule D would neither detract from the relief which had been accorded by AO nor change the factum of carry forward and set off as forming part of the assessment order.
Revision order was remanded back for re-examination of assessee qualification as venture capital as where the amount had been received from the Venture Capitalists, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable.
