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...
Addition of cash deposit under section 68 was not justified as the same could only be invoked if the taxpayer maintained books of accounts and assessee filed an income tax return under Section 44AD which did not require books of accounts.
Assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. However, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay and without adjudicating the issues on merits. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that there is no basis for linking assessee’s alleged violation of RBI notification dated 8th November 2016 to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, when the nature and source is explained.
ITAT Bangalore in the case of cash deposit during demonetization period directed assessee to file KYC of the depositors and accordingly directed AO to verify the same and allow if found in order.
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 justified as AO was fully ignorant about verification of unsecure loan and addition of 10% unsecured loan by AO was baseless hence assessment order turned out to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Rajasthan High Court held that addition on account of bogus accommodation entries merely based on admission of assessee in absence of any corroborative evidence unjustified. Thus, addition held as unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the AO regarding the identity and credit worthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Matter restored to verify transaction for addition u/s. 68.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unsecured loan where loan was repaid is unsustainable, whereas, addition where assessee failed to demonstrate repayment or interest payment to creditor sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that accommodation entries in the nature of bogus unsecured loans is liable to be added as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 confirmed.
CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
