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...
ITAT Delhi held that Section 148 notices issued with approval from an incorrect authority are invalid. Reassessment orders for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were quashed.
The AO made a ₹90 lakh addition under section 68 despite the case being under limited scrutiny. ITAT held that crossing the approved scope renders the addition and assessment void.
The ITAT held that the proviso to Section 68 requiring proof of source of source applies only from AY 2013–14. Since the year involved was AY 2008–09, the ₹32.04 crore share capital addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The ITAT held that reassessment based only on Investigation Wing inputs, without independent application of mind, is invalid. Since reopening itself failed, the Section 68 share capital addition could not survive.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to a shell concern with no real services is taxable as unexplained credit. Claims that expenditure related to an earlier year were rejected.
The ruling confirms that reassessment based on investigation inputs cannot proceed without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Prior scrutiny of share capital defeated the reopening.
The Tribunal held that once cash received was accepted in assessment without any addition, penalty for alleged violation of Section 269SS could not be sustained.
The dispute concerned profits alleged to arise from non-genuine option trades. The Tribunal held that reassessment failed because the AO did not independently examine or correlate the information to the assessee’s case.
The tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid when alleged escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakh. Notices issued contrary to section 149 after the 2021 amendments were quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that unexplained cash credit under Section 68 must be netted off against business income to prevent double addition. The ruling ensures accurate assessment and fair taxation.
