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 Kolkata deletes Rs. 40 Lakh addition against City Shoppe Estates, affirming identity, creditworthiness of share subscribers, and transaction genuineness.
ITAT upholds addition of alleged gift from father-in-law as unexplained cash credit. Sujeet Kumar vs ITO case. Read the full text of the order.
The Delhi High Court ruled that once a TPO issues an order, the AO must pass an assessment order per Section 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi confirms ACIT vs. Delhi Spot Bullion Trading Co. cash sales during demonetisation were legitimate, dismissing Revenue’s appeal.
Explore the ITAT Kolkata ruling on Sunil Khaitan Vs DCIT, delving into the adequacy of fund sources under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Devki Nandan Maheshwari vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) case: Exploring how cash deposits in lender’s bank account were accepted as explained sources, justifying an unsecured loan under Section 68 of Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Allahabad rules on LG Electronics India vs Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing procedural violations are not suppression for extended limitation.
Section 54F amendment restricting exemption to one residential house was prospective, applying only from April 1, 2015 and Violation of section 269SS of the IT Act, if any, would call for a separate penalty under section 271D, not an addition under section 68.
Kuna Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT – ITAT Ahmedabad allowed assessee’s appeal, holding that assessee had provided sufficient details regarding identity and creditworthiness of shareholders.
Discover why ITAT Jodhpur ruled that cash deposits made by a 77-year-old assesse during demonetization couldn’t be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
