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 AO treated loan substitution via group restructuring as an accommodation entry. ITAT ruled that repayment by a holding company backed by bank trails and confirmations cannot be taxed as unexplained credit.
Revenue failed to produce a Section 153C satisfaction note showing the date of handing over seized material. ITAT treated the notice date as the deemed search date and held AY 2012-13 beyond jurisdiction.
The case involved share capital raised at a high premium based on unexecuted projects and circular fund routing. ITAT held that failure to prove creditworthiness and genuineness justified addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal assessed compliance with revised reassessment provisions post Finance Act, 2021. It ruled that sanction by a lower authority after three years is non-est in law, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
CIT(A) remanded a completed scrutiny assessment even after the AO accepted additional evidence in remand. ITAT ruled this exceeded statutory powers and restored the case to CIT(A) for a merits-based decision.
The issue was whether screen-based stock exchange trades can be ignored due to alleged exit providers. The Tribunal ruled that non-response of buyers and weak financials of counterparties do not invalidate genuine exchange-routed transactions.
The issue was whether section 68 additions could survive when loans were already repaid. The Tribunal held that once the assessee is no longer a beneficiary, such additions are unsustainable.
The Tribunal confirmed deletion of additions where the AO made no effort to verify consignees, transporters, or stock movement. Proper documentation and bank-received sale proceeds proved transaction genuineness.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition made on the basis of third-party WhatsApp chat without any incriminating material is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The issue was whether section 68 could be invoked for alleged on-money payments absent direct evidence. The Tribunal ruled that in the absence of corroborative material, the addition must be deleted.
