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 ITAT Kolkata held that earnest money received under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), which was later refunded through banking channels upon cancellation of the agreement, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
The Tribunal found repeated factual errors in recorded reasons and notices. As the reopening lacked live nexus with escapement of income, it was struck down as a nullity.
ITAT held that labeling transactions as accommodation entries without investigation is impermissible. With all three ingredients satisfied, the addition of ₹86.90 lakh was removed.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that providing PAN, confirmations, bank statements, and financial records satisfies statutory requirements. With no defects found by the AO, the addition was rightly deleted.
The ITAT Bangalore held that reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on an incorrect assumption that the assessee had claimed bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions.
The Tribunal held that mere reliance on an Investigation Wing report without linking the assessee to price manipulation cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Documentary evidence and banking transactions supported genuineness.
The Tribunal held that share transactions relating to an earlier assessment year cannot be taxed in a subsequent year. Since the Revenue failed to link them to AY 2018-19, the addition was deleted.
The High Court upheld deletion of ₹7.26 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that PAN, bank statements and audited financials established identity and creditworthiness. Suspicion without evidence was held insufficient.
The addition under Section 68 was deleted as capital introduced by partners is not a loan or unexplained credit of the firm. Enquiry into partners creditworthiness must be conducted separately in their cases.
The Tribunal noted that the AO reopened the case under the mistaken belief that no scrutiny assessment had been made. Such factual error and absence of new incriminating material vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.
