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 dispute included disallowance under section 14A exceeding exempt income. The Tribunal upheld restriction of disallowance to the amount of exempt income and rejected a higher computation. The decision reinforces judicial limits on Rule 8D application.
The Tribunal held that unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained once lenders confirm transactions and respond to section 133(6) notices. Suspicion without evidence cannot justify section 68 additions.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions where cash sales during demonetisation were backed by invoices, VAT payments, and statutory records. Statistical suspicion alone cannot override credible primary evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that once additional evidence is admitted, the appellate authority must adjudicate it on merits. Absence of a speaking order required the matter to be remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that share application money in the first year requires proper enquiry before invoking Section 68. Additions were deleted as statutory conditions were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that cash deposited during demonetisation was supported by evidence of cash sales and debtor collections. Once the source was substantiated, addition under Section 68 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on Insight Portal inputs without independent application of mind is invalid. Since the reassessment itself failed, the addition of share LTCG as unexplained income under section 68 could not survive.
The Tribunal found that estimating agricultural income solely on standard yield figures ignores real-world farming variables. The assessment was partly modified by limiting the addition to ₹50,000.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation was fully explainable from business receipts. ITAT held that explanations were partly unreliable and sustained 50% of the addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be treated as unexplained merely on investigation wing inputs. It held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved with documents, additions under Section 68 cannot survive.
