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 cash deposited in demonetised notes cannot be taxed under Section 69A when it represents recorded business sales. The key takeaway is that duly accounted turnover cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to demonetisation.
The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could invoke section 68 in a limited scrutiny case focused on share premium under section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that, without mandatory approval to expand scrutiny, the addition was legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal rejected estimated additions based on alleged circular trading due to lack of seized material or cash trail. The key takeaway is that suspicion and presumptions cannot replace evidence in search assessments.
The Tribunal found that CIT(A) erred by linking the protective addition to another company. The assessment was remanded for correct identification of the beneficiary.
The Revenue sought to reopen completed assessments under section 153A without fresh incriminating evidence. The Tribunal ruled that such additions are barred, following Kabul Chawla and Abhisar Buildwell.
The Tribunal upheld reassessment based on Investigation Wing material alleging accommodation entries. It ruled that such tangible inputs justified reopening despite a completed scrutiny assessment.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked despite detailed verification of unsecured loans during scrutiny. The ITAT held that once enquiries are duly conducted, section 263 cannot be used for a deeper re-probe.
The tribunal noted that the firm had no business activity and only earned interest income. It held that unexplained income cannot be presumed in such circumstances when contributors are identified.
ITAT Pune held that disallowance of interest paid on housing loan is upheld since assessee has failed to provide documentary evidence like loan sanction letter or bank certificate. Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that section 25(4) of the Customs Act is declared as arbitrary and contrary to section 25(1) and (2A) of the Customs Act. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.
