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 Mumbai held that tax authorities cannot assessee share premium amount under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition made u/s 68 is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 68 towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing company.
Read the full text of ITAT Ahmedabad’s order deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Dineshkumar Kanjibhai Patel-HUF as no concealment of particulars or inaccurate income filing found.
ITAT Chennai held that in the present case AO himself referred the matter for special audit u/s 142(2A), however, report of special auditor was later rejected without assigning any reasons for the same is in explicable.
A comprehensive review of ITAT Delhi’s ruling on DCIT Vs Saarthak Vanijya India Ltd case, about the viability of reassessment based on retracted statements.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Analyzing the High Court case, ACIT Vs Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt. Ltd., focusing on the PCIT’s ability to exercise revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax beyond six Assessment Year immediately preceding the Assessment year from the date of recording of satisfaction note/ handling over of relevant material is not in accordance with law.
“ITAT Mumbai upholds tax exemption for share of profit from partnership firm, rejects addition u/s 68 due to non-payment of taxes by the firm. Read the full ruling.
ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of a production supervisor, declaring no illegality in adopting presumptive tax under section 44AD. Full analysis of the case.
