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 upheld deletion of additions after finding that sales receipts were supported by banking records, invoices, and audited books, with no contrary evidence from the tax department.
The Tribunal deleted a cash credit addition after finding that temporary family deposits were fully explained. The ruling confirms that genuine, short-term deposits cannot be taxed without contrary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits. The matter was remanded to ensure proper consideration after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
The dispute involved taxing unexplained increases in partners capital in the firms assessment. The Tribunal affirmed that such additions, if any, can only be examined in the hands of partners and not the partnership firm.
The tribunal ruled that cash deposits sourced from recorded cash sales and bank withdrawals were genuine. It held that partial, ad-hoc additions without rejecting books of account are unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of unsecured loan additions after finding that the lenders identity, bank trail, and reserves were established. Low declared income alone was held insufficient to treat the credits as unexplained.
The Tribunal held that demonetization-period cash deposits were supported by agricultural income evidence. The section 68 addition was deleted after accepting bills, vouchers, and landholding details.
Construction, fit-out, and IT installation costs capitalised in fixed assets were held genuine. The Tribunal emphasized substance of records over suspicion based on third-party allegations.
Sales already offered to tax cannot be added again under section 68. With stock movement evidenced and books not rejected, treating recorded turnover as unexplained cash credit was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that when purchases are disallowed as non-genuine without questioning the source of payment, section 69C cannot be invoked. A plausible disallowance under section 37(1) cannot be revised under section 263 merely to change the charging provision.
