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 observed that the assessee discharged its burden under Section 68 by filing confirmations, financials, and banking records of the lender. In absence of contrary evidence, the onus shifted to the Revenue. The addition was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot survive when the final addition differs from the reasons recorded. Treating dividend as unexplained cash credit was beyond the scope of reopening.
Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal, ITAT ruled that proper sanction is mandatory under the new reassessment regime. Non-compliance with Section 151 rendered the notice and subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
ITAT deleted ₹60 lakh addition as the Revenue relied solely on a third-party confession without independent verification. Documentary evidence such as confirmations, ITRs and bank statements discharged the assessee’s onus.
ITAT quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT. Notice issued after three years was held void for lack of proper jurisdiction.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid as approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the statutorily required Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains treated as bogus could not be added in a completed assessment year absent search-based incriminating evidence. Investigation reports alone were held insufficient.
The Tribunal ruled that mere circulation of funds among group entities does not prove round-tripping unless supported by cogent evidence. Suspicion alone cannot justify addition under Section 68.
ITAT ruled that issuance of shares at premium does not automatically attract addition under Section 68. Proper documentation and lack of enquiry by the AO led to deletion of the addition.
ITAT held that though Section 151A was on statute, it required notification to take effect. As the order preceded notification, the assessment was quashed in entirety.
