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 CIT(A) cannot make a fresh addition without issuing an enhancement notice. Cash redeposits from explained loan withdrawals were accepted as genuine.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustment cannot survive without a final assessment order post-DRP directions. Repeating such addition in a Section 263 order was held invalid.
The issue involved revision of assessment where income was declared under Section 44AD. The Tribunal held that absence of books makes Section 68 inapplicable. The takeaway is that revision cannot be based on lack of records not required by law.
ITAT examined demonetisation cash deposits and accepted sales and withdrawals as valid sources. However, addition was partly sustained due to unsubstantiated claims like cash gifts.
The Tribunal examined whether addition under Section 68 could be made without seized evidence. It held that no addition is permissible in absence of incriminating material. The key takeaway is that search assessments must rely on concrete evidence.
The issue was whether rejection of books and GP estimation was justified due to missing records. ITAT upheld the addition, ruling that failure to produce bills, vouchers, and stock records justified estimation.
The issue was whether repayment of loans through banking channels proves genuineness under Section 68. ITAT Delhi held it does not, ruling that bogus loans remain unexplained even if repaid.
Retrospective cancellation of registration was held to be invalid as the scheme of Act did not permit cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) with retrospective effect in absence of explicit statutory authority.
The Tribunal held that unexplained cash credits must be taxed in the year they are recorded in the books, not when allegedly received. Since the ₹80 lakh was credited in AY 1997–98, the addition under Section 68 was upheld despite claims of earlier receipt.
The issue was whether reassessment was valid without proper service of mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh examination, holding that the jurisdictional issue requires reconsideration.
