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 issue was whether demonetisation cash deposits can be taxed as unexplained credits solely due to use of SBN. The ITAT held that proper explanation and records negate automatic addition under section 68.
The tribunal held that reassessment fails if no addition is made on the issue cited for reopening. Additions on unrelated grounds were declared beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that incorrect invocation of Section 69A does not invalidate the addition. Since the loan was found to be an accommodation entry, it was sustained under Section 68. The decision emphasizes substance over technical defects.
ITAT held that the assessee discharged the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. Addition was deleted as AO relied only on suspicion without evidence.
ITAT remanded the matter where the assessee claimed PAN misuse leading to additions under Sections 68 and 69. It directed AO to verify the police report, holding that relief must be granted if misuse is substantiated.
ITAT upheld addition under Section 68 as the assessee failed to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loans. It ruled that mere submissions without proper evidence do not discharge the initial onus, and addition was rightly sustained.
ITAT set aside the addition made under Section 68 due to incomplete verification of a large gift transaction. It remanded the case for fresh examination with proper evidence and opportunity.
Tribunal set aside addition as the assessee established genuineness of loans through documentary evidence. However, it remanded the case to verify whether loans were repaid.
ITAT held that stamp duty value on registration date cannot be applied where allotment occurred earlier. Allotment date determines valuation under Section 56.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
