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 held that an unsigned notice under Section 148 is invalid and does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the entire reassessment and additions were quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal rejected full disallowance of alleged bogus purchases and adopted a balanced approach by estimating profit at 10%. Section 68 was held to be wrongly invoked.
The Revenue alleged unexplained cash credits despite documentary evidence. The Tribunal ruled that once loans are repaid with interest and TDS, Section 68 cannot be invoked in isolation.
Explains how GST law distinguishes detention under Section 129 from confiscation under Section 130, highlighting when authorities can legally invoke each provision.
The case examined whether other additions can be made when the reopening issue is not sustained. The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot be used as a roving enquiry.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of bad debts claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is not justifiable if offered as income in any year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify that amount for which bad debts have claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) were indeed offered as income for the said years.
The Tribunal ruled that loans from salaried relatives with disclosed income and banking trails satisfy identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. The Section 68 addition was therefore unsustainable.
The tax authorities made an addition without examining the lenders bank records. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify fund availability and absence of cash deposits.
The AO treated loans as unexplained due to incomplete confirmations. The Tribunal confirmed deletion after remand proceedings verified lenders’ identity, capacity, and transaction genuineness.
The Tribunal ruled that when all statutory documents are on record and unchallenged, section 68 cannot be invoked. Suspicion cannot substitute proof in share capital cases.
