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 ITAT deleted a ₹78 lakh addition made under Section 68 for alleged accommodation entries from two companies, ruling the issue was covered by multiple binding coordinate bench decisions. Following prior judgments, the Tribunal held that M/s Jay Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd. and related entities were genuine concerns, thus the cash credit addition could not be sustained.
Upholding a crucial legal principle, the ITAT ruled that where a businesss income is estimated on a percentage-of-turnover basis, any additions made under 68 for items like unsecured loans or capital on the basis of unverified entries must be deleted. The decision provides relief by confirming that estimated net profit covers the source of cash and capital.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside an order that attempted to rectify an assessment to tax a survey disclosure under Section 69A/115BBE instead of normal business income. The Tribunal ruled that the question of classifying the already accounted income as business receipts versus unexplained money is a debatable issue that falls outside the limited scope of rectification under Section 154.
This ruling underscores the mandatory requirement for incriminating material to sustain additions in a Section 153C search assessment, leading to the deletion of a major bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) addition. Furthermore, the ITAT confirmed that a partnership firm’s investment and income cannot be attributed to an individual partner, securing significant tax relief.
The ITAT ruled that seized parallel Tally data, reflecting higher sales and income, constitutes reliable incriminating material, validating assessments made under Section 153A. The tribunal sustained additions for higher gross profit and unexplained credits after the taxpayer failed to disprove the parallel records’ accuracy, reinforcing the presumption under Section 292C.
The Mumbai ITAT restricted the disallowance for purchases from hawala parties to 25% of the bogus purchase amount, affirming the material was genuinely received and sold, despite fictitious invoices. The ruling relies on the Gujarat High Court’s precedent in Vijay Proteins.
ITAT Kolkata rules that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material, citing the Supreme Court’s Abhisar Buildwell judgment.
Tribunal confirms that notices under section 148 post-March 2022 must be issued by Faceless Assessing Officers, rendering JAO-issued notices void.
Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period and without sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner was invalid, following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal.
The Revenue relied on suspicion and the principle of human probability to challenge cash deposits made by a crockery and electronics trader during the permitted demonetisation window. The Tribunal held that without first rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3), the AO cannot legally disregard the substantial cash-in-hand shown by the assessee’s audited records and verified festival season sales.
