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 Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s appeal against deletion of a ₹63.84 lakh addition under Section 68, observing that the assessee had already declared the same transactions as sales in audited accounts. Citing CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., it held that taxing such income again would lead to double taxation. The order reinforces that genuine recorded transactions cannot be recharacterized as unexplained cash credits.
Rejecting assessee’s plea of invalid reopening, Tribunal ruled that minor clerical mistakes in reasons recorded under Section 147 do not vitiate proceedings if substantive material exists. Information disseminated through Insight Portal was sufficient to establish AO’s belief.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order confirming addition of ₹15.01 lakh as unexplained cash deposits, directing the authority to give the assessee a fair opportunity to rebut the remand report and produce supporting evidence.
ITAT Cuttack remanded a demonetization case back to CIT(A), granting legal heir of deceased assessee a fresh opportunity. Tribunal ruled that appeal, which involved factual verification of large cash deposits, should be adjudicated on merits after allowing heir to furnish supporting documents.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a Rs.5 lakh addition for unrecorded cash sales, ruling that WhatsApp chats are inadmissible as evidence without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The decision establishes that unverified electronic data cannot sustain tax additions, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the deletion of a ₹65 lakh addition under Section 68 was proper because the taxpayer established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal accepted that the loans were received and repaid through banking channels, backed by confirmations, bank statements, and audited financials.
The Mumbai ITAT deleted the interest disallowance, applying the principle of consistency because the Revenue had previously accepted the assessee’s classification of net interest income under Income from Other Sources in earlier scrutiny assessments. The court found no justification to deviate from this accepted treatment for the current year.
The ITAT Delhi affirmed that a substantial increase in cash sales during demonetisation is insufficient grounds for a Section 68 addition when books of accounts are not found defective. The ruling confirms that genuine cash sales, properly recorded and matching stock/VAT records, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits.
ITAT ruled that taxing cash deposits as unexplained credit under Section 68 when underlying sales are already accepted by AO and VAT authorities amounts to illegal double taxation. Decision confirmed that source of demonetised currency deposits was clearly traceable to regular business receipts.
