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 Bangalore held that the presence of associate or nominal members does not disqualify a co-operative society from claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
ITAT ruled that appellate powers under Section 251 are confined to assessment year under appeal. Directions to reopen completed assessments for another year were held beyond jurisdiction.
Delhi ITAT held that unsecured loans already forfeited and offered to tax in a subsequent assessment year cannot again be taxed under Section 68 in the year of receipt. The Tribunal ruled that such action would result in impermissible double taxation.
Delhi ITAT restored ₹6.30 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the Mauritius investor’s financial statements were unsigned and unauthenticated. The Tribunal held that incomplete documents cannot establish identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of transactions.
Delhi ITAT held that an Assessing Officer cannot make additions beyond the specific issues remanded by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263. Fresh additions unrelated to the revision directions were therefore rightly deleted.
The Delhi ITAT held that large cash deposits and investigation wing information alone do not create valid reason to believe for reopening assessment under Section 147. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on suspicion and borrowed satisfaction is invalid in law.
The Kolkata ITAT held that a commercial loan repaid within the same financial year along with interest and TDS compliance could not be treated as a bogus accommodation entry under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and banking transactions established the genuineness of the loan.
The Delhi ITAT held that opening balances of unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 when no fresh funds were received during the relevant year. The Tribunal deleted additions after finding that the Assessing Officer wrongly included brought-forward balances.
The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee after noting that audited financials, PAN, bank statements, ITRs, confirmations, and MCA records of lenders were furnished. The ruling reinforces that documentary evidence can successfully rebut allegations of bogus loans.
The Tribunal ruled that mere observations about cash transactions are insufficient to levy penalty under Section 271D. A specific finding establishing contravention of Section 269SS is mandatory before imposing penalty.
