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...
Commission payments to agents were held genuine for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. Tribunal directed deletion of disallowances as payments were backed by bank records, TDS, and recipient confirmations.
Genuine sale was established through invoices, stock records, ledgers, bank proofs, and direct buyer confirmations, leaving no room for Section 68 additions. ITAT held that when sales are proved, no commission can be presumed under Section 69C.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed loans from Hallow Securities and Dhankalash were genuine, rejecting Revenue’s allegations of shell-company loans. Interest claimed on these loans was also allowed. The ruling highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in section 68 assessments.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same grounds already examined in the original scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. With no new material on record, the reassessment was found invalid. The ruling reinforces that the AO cannot revisit an earlier view in the guise of section 147 proceedings.
Tribunal allowed assessee’s application to file additional evidence proving residential nature of the property. AO is directed to re-evaluate the claim afresh, granting opportunity for hearing and considering all relevant materials and case laws.
Delhi ITAT sets aside CIT(A) order for hearing merits despite refusing to condone an eight-month delay, highlighting the need for proper legal procedure and natural justice.
The ITAT annulled the entire reassessment because the Section 148 notice was issued after the Supreme Court–mandated surviving-period cutoff. The ruling confirms that any notice beyond this timeline is void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening based solely on an Insight Portal flag without independent verification is invalid. It held that absence of tangible material and incorrect factual assumptions renders the entire 147 proceeding void.
ITAT held that reassessment based solely on earlier-examined facts is invalid. Since shares were sold through a SEBI broker and gains were already taxed, no Section 68 addition could survive.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed all expense disallowances and additions for unexplained share capital, premium, and warrants. The assessee failed to prove genuineness or creditworthiness, and identity alone was insufficient under section 68.
