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 directed normal taxation, holding that Section 115BBE could not be invoked for the year involved. This reinforces the prospective operation of the higher tax regime.
The Tribunal restricted additions on demonetization-era cash deposits where books were audited and not rejected. Only a nominal amount was sustained to balance equity.
The Tribunal held that a loan repaid through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained when identity and creditworthiness are shown. Allegations based on untested statements were rejected.
ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made for an unabated year unless incriminating material is found during search. Share premium additions based only on books and enquiries were rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid as the statutory sanction under Section 151 was granted mechanically. Mere use of the word Approved does not show application of mind and vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained when no incriminating material is found at the assessees premises. Additions based on third-party material were quashed as being without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that treating a belated return as non est is legally unsustainable. Absence of a Section 143(2) notice invalidates the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that cash advances/on-money received for an ongoing real estate project cannot be taxed before completion when the Project Completion Method is consistently followed. Income already offered and accepted in the completion year cannot be taxed again earlier.
The Tribunal held that share capital received from promoters cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68 without tangible evidence. Mere suspicion about source of funds or share premium is insufficient.
The reassessment was struck down as sanction was obtained from a Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151. Jurisdictional defect invalidated all subsequent proceedings.
