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 ruled that without rejecting books of account or disproving sales, addition of aggregate cash deposits is unsustainable. Detailed reconciliations established nexus with business receipts.
The Tribunal ruled that once cash sales are recorded in books and included in declared turnover, separate addition of deposits would result in double taxation. The entire ₹4.74 crore addition was deleted.
While deleting the interest disallowance on merits, the Tribunal remanded the brought-forward loss issue for limited verification. Other legal grounds were treated as academic.
ITAT held that additions relying merely on investigation wing reports and retracted statements, without direct incriminating evidence, violate settled principles governing Section 153A proceedings.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance in terms of section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D restricted to the extent of investment which yielded exempt income. Accordingly, disallowance restricted and appeal partly allowed.
The ITAT reaffirmed that Section 2(22)(e) cannot extend the definition of shareholder to a concern receiving the loan. The deemed dividend, if attracted, must be taxed in the hands of the substantial shareholder alone.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on investigation wing information without independent application of mind is invalid. Mechanical reasons cannot justify reassessment under Section 147.
The Tribunal found that the investors had substantial net worth far exceeding their investments. With PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and audited financials on record, the share capital could not be treated as unexplained.
The ITAT held that absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional defect. Since the notice was not properly issued by the competent officer, the entire assessment was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that proving source of source was not mandatory for AY 2014-15. Since identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established, unsecured loan additions were deleted.
