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 partially allowed Rs. 46.75 lakh cash deposit claim, accepting Rs. 11 lakh while remitting Rs. 35.75 lakh for verification, highlighting the importance of documentary proof for deposits during demonetization.
Raipur ITAT remanded the section 68 addition of ₹14.3 lakh, observing that NFAC/CIT(A) failed to examine confirmations, ITRs, or facts. The order lacked independent reasoning and was set aside for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be approved since explanation of assessee is rejected without verification and also Standard Operation Procedures [SOP] provided in CBDT instruction No. 3/2017 dated 21/02/2017 also not followed. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of AO.
The Tribunal refused to condone an extraordinary delay of 2,590 days, noting absence of evidence supporting the reasons cited for the delay. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
ITAT Indore held that the order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act made out by authorities, without serving notice upon assessee, would be invalid and inoperative. Accordingly, action undertaken by AO u/s. 147/148 will also be illegal.
The case examines whether a Section 148 notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid. Key takeaway: approval beyond three years required the higher authority under Section 151(ii), making the notice vulnerable.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted Rs. 10.84 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that the assessee had properly documented loans and repayments. Key takeaway: Genuineness of transactions with third-party entities can neutralize claims of unexplained credits.
Tribunal held that AO erred by rejecting agricultural income based on estimated rates and online data while ignoring affidavits from buyers. It ruled that uncontroverted evidence cannot be replaced by assumptions, leading to deletion of ₹1.20 crore addition.
The ITAT determined that the tax department failed to adhere to the statutory deadline for issuing a Section 148 notice, making the reassessment jurisdiction invalid from the start. The ruling confirms that strict adherence to the extended limitation period is mandatory, and failure to comply results in the entire reassessment being quashed.
Assessing the full cash component of a property sale in the hands of one legal heir was found to be factually incorrect, leading the Tribunal to delete the addition. The appellate authority confirmed that the proceeds were jointly receivable by all co-owners and could not be attributed to the Assessee exclusively as unexplained credit.
