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...
This case involved a ₹1 crore cash deposit treated as unexplained by tax authorities. The Tribunal ruled that since the deposit was sourced from earlier withdrawals, the addition was unsustainable.
It was held that documented capital contributions supported by affidavits, bank records, and land evidence are explained credits. Assessing authorities cannot disregard undisputed financial capacity.
The appellate order confirmed loan additions without addressing the Rule 46A plea. Holding this to be a serious procedural defect, the Tribunal set aside the order for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal reviewed an addition based on demonetisation-era cash deposits despite detailed hospital records being produced. It ruled that ignoring cash books and patient registers was unjustified.
The issue was whether a trader declaring income under Section 44AD could face additions for unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee, holding such additions contrary to law.
The issue was whether share capital could be added in a completed assessment without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in an unabated year, additions are barred absent incriminating material.
Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
This ruling clarifies that repayment of loan with interest, coupled with documentary proof, negates allegations of unexplained cash credit. Mere suspicion without defects in evidence cannot sustain an addition.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited during demonetisation came from genuine business sales already offered to tax. It held that taxing the same amount again under Section 68 and Section 115BBE would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal held that estimating commission income without corroborative evidence is unsustainable. Audited accounts and consistent interest income showed genuine business activity, leading to deletion of the addition.
