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 held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by invoking Section 68 without prior approval. The assessment was quashed as legally unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon were later retracted and lacked corroboration. It held that such statements cannot form sole basis of addition. The ruling emphasizes need for supporting evidence in tax proceedings.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO is valid. The tribunal held that proceedings are void ab initio when jurisdiction had already been transferred under Section 127.
The Tribunal noted that loans were part of regular business transactions with repayments in the same year. It held that such conduct strengthens the claim of genuineness. The case highlights the relevance of transaction pattern in tax scrutiny.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that once additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted, penalty became infructuous. The ruling highlights the dependency of penalty on assessment findings.
The notice issued after the permissible window calculated under TOLA and judicial rulings was held void. The case highlights strict adherence to limitation timelines.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot sustain addition under Section 68 without issuing notice under Section 251(2). It also noted that the AO had already accepted evidences of investors.
ITAT condoned an 820-day delay due to a bona fide jurisdictional mistake. It held that SBN deposits from members cannot be treated as unexplained when the source is properly explained.
The CIT(A) upheld additions without discussing merits or legal issues. The Tribunal ruled that a speaking order is mandatory and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
