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 Delhi upheld deletion of ₹60 lakh addition after finding that the assessee furnished confirmations, audited financials, bank statements, and Section 133(6) replies. In absence of direct evidence linking loans to accommodation entries, the addition under Section 68 was held unsustainable.
The AO added expenditure based solely on a mistaken audit report entry. The ITAT deleted the addition after confirming from the concerned party that no transaction occurred.
The Tribunal clarified that even where the assessee owns more than ten trucks, Section 44AE can be used as a fair yardstick for income estimation. Arbitrary assessment and multiple additions were set aside.
Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that failure to provide underlying material before passing order under Section 148A(d) invalidates reopening. The assessment order was consequently quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment notice issued beyond three years is invalid where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Non-compliance with amended section 151 rendered the notice and entire proceedings void.
The Tribunal observed that ₹99.10 lakh allegedly added as unexplained credits may represent earlier year balances. The matter was remanded for verification to avoid wrongful taxation in the current assessment year.
Holding that the Assessing Officer recorded a mechanical satisfaction note without concrete incriminating evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenues appeals and confirmed invalid jurisdiction under Section 153C.
The Tribunal emphasized that approval from the correct specified authority is mandatory where reopening exceeds three years. Failure to comply rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction note. As the mandatory requirement of year-wise satisfaction was not met, the entire assessment was quashed.
ITAT ruled that once cash sales are recorded in audited books and accepted by the AO, taxing the same deposits again would result in double addition. The deletion of ₹1.54 crore was upheld.
