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...
Tribunal held that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of shareholders were proven through documents filed before AO and CIT(A). Since authorities ignored valid evidence, the section 68 addition was deleted.
An addition of ₹1 crore under section 68 was challenged on the ground that the assessee had no opportunity to produce supporting documents. The matter was remanded to the AO for de novo assessment, keeping all contentions open.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that cash advances discovered during a survey must be assessed as business income, not unexplained cash credit under Section 68, making the exercise tax-neutral.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that detailed records, including Demat statements and contract notes, proved the genuineness of penny-stock transactions, nullifying additions under Sections 68 and 69C.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit during demonetization under section 68 without rejection of books of accounts is unwarranted. Further, addition is also not warranted as genuineness of cash sale duly proved.
The ITAT held that the alleged bogus purchases could not stand when the assessee produced complete documentary evidence showing genuine procurement and consumption. With no contrary evidence from the AO, the 69C addition was removed.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 56(2) towards receipt of gift from HUF to be re-considered for exemption under section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO with specific direction.
ITAT Kolkata upheld deletion of ₹8.70 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that proper evidence and confirmations by loan creditors absolved the assessee. Arbitrary AO findings cannot justify tax.
The Delhi High Court upheld ITAT’s order, ruling that no incriminating material was seized, and investor companies had sufficient net worth. Additions under Sections 68 and 153A were not justified.
The addition was based on a loose paper that did not match Yes Bank loan details or HMA ledger figures. The Tribunal upheld that such uncorroborated papers cannot sustain a 69C addition, especially when business had not yet commenced. The takeaway is that tax additions must be backed by verifiable evidence, not estimations on loose sheets.
