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 ITAT held that the appellate authority mechanically affirmed reassessment additions without independent examination of merits. The matter was remanded to grant the assessee a fair and effective opportunity to explain cash deposits and other additions.
The ITAT held that additions under section 153A for unabated years require incriminating material found during search. Suspicion, past records or third-party allegations cannot substitute seized evidence.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer has examined and accepted the source of property investment, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) cannot reopen the issue under section 263. The ruling emphasizes finality of AO’s findings.
The issue was whether reassessment and LTCG addition could rest solely on INSIGHT portal information. The ITAT held that without independent enquiry or corroborative material, such inputs cannot sustain reopening or additions. The key takeaway is that suspicion can-not substitute evidence.
The Tribunal considered reliance on investigation wing inputs alleging non-genuine entities. It ruled that adverse material must be shared with the assessee and corroborated through proper enquiry before sustaining additions.
The issue was whether partners’ capital contributions could be taxed as unexplained cash credits in the firm’s hands. The ITAT ruled that once partners are identified and capital intro-duction is proved, section 68 cannot be applied to the firm.
The Tribunal examined whether an addition under section 153C could survive without seized material. It held that in an unabated year, additions are impermissible without incriminating evidence found during search, leading to deletion of the addition.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal noted that even the Revenue admitted TOLA does not cover AY 2015-16. Notices issued after the original limitation period were therefore invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that non-filing of returns, absence of audited books, and lack of donor details defeat the claim for exemption under Section 13A. Voluntary contributions thus became taxable, though Section 68 additions were set aside.
While sustaining additions on merits, ITAT Delhi restricted taxable income to a lump-sum 8% of Section 68-type amounts. The estimation was granted as a one-time relief and expressly not treated as a precedent.
