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 Court held that failure of a creditor to file a return for the relevant year cannot alone justify a Section 68 addition. Once identity and banking trail are proved, the burden on the assessee stands discharged.
The High Court held that an addition for unexplained investment cannot rest solely on an unsigned and unexecuted agreement. The key takeaway is that Section 69 requires concrete evidence of actual payment, not assumptions drawn from incomplete documents.
The Assessing Officer imposed penalty after treating disclosed capital gains as business income. The Tribunal ruled that classification disputes, without suppression of facts, cannot justify penalty.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a ₹2.27 crore addition after finding that the capital deposit did not pertain to the assessment year in question. Without a year-wise nexus, section 68 could not be invoked.
The case examined whether reassessment after four years was valid when the issues were already examined in scrutiny. The Tribunal held the reopening invalid as a mere change of opinion and quashed the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains from listed share sales could not be treated as bogus merely due to high profits. In the absence of contrary evidence, additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted.
The ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 where the Assessing Officer accepted large demonetisation cash deposits without proper verification. Failure to examine utilisation of withdrawals or call for a cash book rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether an appeal can be rejected without first considering condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that dismissal without condoning delay is invalid and requires fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 cannot be invoked unless a sum is found credited in the assessees books. In the absence of any such entry, the addition based on an alleged cash loan was deleted.
The AO accepted documents but still made an addition without pointing out defects. The Tribunal ruled that section 68 requires adverse findings, not assumptions.
