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 High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the assessee discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by proving the lender’s identity and creditworthiness via banking channels and subsequent repayment with interest. It was held that doubts regarding the lender’s own creditors are irrelevant for the assessee’s assessment prior to the 2022 amendment, provided the primary transaction is genuine.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s omission to verify whether the land sold fell within municipal limits made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying Section 263 revision.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained when the AO had already accepted the related cash sales as part of audited turnover. Since stocks, sales, VAT records, and cash books were undisputed, the addition amounted to double taxation. The entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by a partner could not be taxed as unexplained when authorities failed to verify the assessee’s evidence. Both the AO and CIT(A) ignored cash flow records and bank statements without conducting inquiry. The addition was deleted for violating principles of natural justice.
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Additions made by the AO and CIT(A) during demonetization were deleted, preventing double taxation.
ITAT held that although the assessee attempted to justify cash deposits as scrap sales, lack of key supporting records justified only a partial lump-sum addition. Key takeaway: Section 68 additions must be proportionate to actual evidentiary gaps.
Tribunal held that demonetisation cash deposits represented genuine business sales and could not be taxed as unexplained income under sections 68/115BBE. Only ₹25 lakhs was sustained due to incomplete explanation, with the remaining addition deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT’s sanction under section 151 was granted before the AO recorded reasons to reopen the assessment, violating mandatory procedural requirements. As the jurisdictional defect went to the root, the section 148 notice and entire section 147 reassessment were declared void ab initio.
The order reiterates that mere unusual price movement or high returns do not convert a scrip into a penny stock. With identical facts earlier examined and accepted, the Tribunal followed precedent and removed all additions.
The tribunal ruled that Section 54 benefits apply to property purchased abroad before AY 2015-16, reversing the prior disallowance. Cash deposits in bank accounts without business entries cannot be treated as unexplained credit.
