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...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the...
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 : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
The Kolkata ITAT deleted a Rs.31 crore unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68 on the sale of shares, ruling the AO mechanically relied on an investigation report without fresh evidence. The tribunal held that investments accepted by the Department in previous years and confirmed via an NCLT merger cannot be summarily taxed upon sale.
ITAT Chandigarh quashed an assessment order made under Section 143(3) for a pre-search year, holding that after a Section 132 search, the assessment must mandatorily proceed under Section 148 with proper Section 148B approval. The tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s continuation of the scrutiny post-search was a jurisdictional error, making the assessment void ab initio.
ITAT Chennai held that when sales are accepted and supported by records, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers were untraceable. Addition restricted to 12.5% as profit element.
ITAT set aside ex-parte additions for unsecured loans and partner’s capital, ruling that taxpayer had reasonable cause for late submission of evidence due to departure of their accountant and Authorized Representative (AR). Tribunal directed CIT(A) to admit evidence under Rule 46A and decide case on its merits.
ITAT Delhi remanded the addition of 12.5% profit on alleged bogus sales because the CIT(A) sustained the amount (₹20.16 lakh) without providing adequate reasoning or opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh, speaking order after considering all submissions.
AO made an addition based on difference between stamp value and purchase price without referring matter to a Valuation Officer despite assessee’s objection. ITAT held this omission violated Section 56(2)(x) and principles of natural justice. It observed that assessee’s registered valuer report showing a lower market value was ignored. Consequently, addition was quashed.
The ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 56(2)(viib) addition, ruling that the CIT(A) acted improperly by selectively accepting valuation evidence for one issue (Sec. 68) but rejecting it for the share premium issue. The matter was remanded for a fresh review of the valuation evidence, establishing that all relevant material must be considered fairly.
ITAT Chennai deleted additions made in search assessments (u/s 153A), ruling that Income Tax Department cannot make additions without specific, incriminating material seized during search. Following Supreme Courts ruling in Abhisar Buildwell, Tribunal held that search assessments are not fishing expeditions and must be strictly limited to evidence found post-search.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order, deleting an addition for cash deposits during the demonetisation period because the Assessing Officer (AO) ignored 28 debtor confirmations and audited accounts. The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 is invalid without rejecting the genuine books of account or verifying the provided evidence of business receipts.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee has duly discharged the primary onus. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
