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 unsecured loans totaling ₹1.05 crore could not be added under Section 68 where the AO failed to make any inquiry or issue summons, emphasizing that suspicion alone cannot justify additions.
The issue was whether an unsecured loan could be treated as unexplained despite evidence on record. ITAT Delhi held that the appellate authority erred in ignoring uploaded documents and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from recorded pharmacy sales during demonetisation cannot be added under section 68 when turnover is accepted and duly taxed.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were held genuine where supported by EMI recoveries from thousands of borrowers, with no enquiry or evidence to treat them as unexplained.
Lenders had confirmed loans in response to statutory notices, yet additions were made. The Tribunal upheld deletion by CIT(A), stressing the importance of uncontroverted confirmations. The ruling reinforces evidentiary discipline in Section 68 cases.
The High Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal as the tax effect was below ₹2 crore, applying the CBDT monetary limit circular and leaving the Tribunal’s deletion of the Section 68 addition undisturbed.
Court ruled that repayment of sums in cash violates Section 269T and attracts penalty under Section 271E, even when the same sums were treated as income under Section 68 in an earlier assessment.
The ITAT restored the case for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee filed a return showing a loss and was not given proper opportunity to be heard before dismissal of appeal.
The court ruled that once purchases are found unproved, restricting additions to a profit percentage is incorrect. Full disallowance is required under Section 69C where genuineness is not established.
The key question was whether STR-based information can trigger harsh taxation under Section 115BBE. The ITAT held that without concrete evidence of non-genuine transactions, such additions cannot stand. Both reopening and tax addition were annulled.
