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...
ITAT Pune held that reopening based on old investigation data was invalid where transactions were already verified under Section 153A. The Tribunal found the penny stock gains genuine as supported by Demat, bank, and STT records.
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.7.86 Cr treated as unexplained cash credit due to a sharp increase in proprietor’s capital shown in the tax return. The ITAT set aside the addition, finding a prima facie case of mere misclassification of partner overdrawn balances as capital, which should not be automatically treated as new unexplained income under S 68.
ITAT Jaipur held that gain not realized during the year under consideration cannot be taxed under the head capital gain or as income under the head profit and gains of business or profession by valuing unsold scrips at market value.
The case addressed a Rs.605 Cr addition under Section 68 for alleged bogus sales, where the AO didn’t reject the books. The ITAT remanded the matter, directing the AO to recompute income by applying the average three-year Gross Profit rate on sales, establishing that entire sales cannot be taxed as unexplained credits when books aren’t rejected.
ITAT Lucknow held that cash deposits during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained credit since the same is made out of cash sales. Accordingly, addition merely on suspicion, doubt, conjecture and guess work cannot be sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gains cannot be treated as unaccounted income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since AO nowhere proved that assessee himself was involved in price rigging of any of the scrips. Accordingly, appeal of assessee stands allowed.
ITAT ruled that interest on loans cannot be disallowed when the AO accepts the loan principal is genuine by dropping an addition proposed under Section 68 of the Act. which deleted a Rs 3 lakh interest disallowance after the tax officer admitted the underlying loans were genuine.
ITAT Delhi sustained reopening under Section 147 but upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of every addition—covering commission income, travel expenses, rent, and salaries—after finding all claims duly supported by records. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed in full.
Delhi ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding deletion of a Rs.19.18 crore protective addition against an alleged entry operator. Ruling affirmed that since AO accepted assessee as a commission agent, only estimated commission income, and not entire turnover, was taxable in agent’s hands.
This ruling clarifies that cash deposits during the demonetization period cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 68 when they are fully reflected in the business’s accepted books and sales. The ITAT emphasized that the AO failed to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) before making the addition, thereby deleting the entire demand.
