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 the assessee had furnished PAN, bank statements, confirmations, and financial details establishing the identity and source of the investor. Since the AO relied mainly on tracing further layers of transactions without adverse evidence against the assessee, the addition under section 68 was deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where approval under Section 151 was granted mechanically. The sanction was based on the incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed a return.
ITAT Delhi deleted additions under Sections 68 and 69C after finding that the assessee received and repaid loans through banking channels with supporting confirmations and evidence.
ITAT ruled that addition under Section 68 requires a fresh credit in the books during the relevant year. Where loans represent opening balances from earlier years, they cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that mere acceptance of demonetized currency during the demonetization period cannot justify addition under Section 68 when identity, genuineness, and source are established. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once loan transactions are routed through banking channels and identity and genuineness are established, the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source. The unsecured loan addition of Rs. 60 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal held that once retail liquor sales were accepted and income estimated, cash deposits used for liquor purchases could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69A. The addition was deleted due to recorded business transactions.
ITAT held that scrap trading does not follow a fixed sales pattern and income declared under Section 44AD cannot be rejected on suspicion. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the Section 68 addition on LTCG from listed shares, holding that documentary evidence, STT payment, and banking trail were not disproved by the Revenue.
The Tribunal deleted the ₹60 lakh addition under Section 68 after noting that the loan was received and repaid through banking channels and the lenders identity was established.
