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 Revenue treated a documented sale of gold, with payment received via RTGS, as a bogus accommodation entry solely based on the buyer’s failure to reply to a section 133(6) notice. The Tribunal held that concrete evidence, including the full bank trail, stock records, and invoice, outweighs a general investigation report or the non-cooperation of a third party, and deleted the unjustified addition under section 69A.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a Tribunal’s observation to assess under S. 68 is non-binding, granting the assessee an “open remit” to challenge the cash credit addition.
ITAT Jabalpur partially allowed Dayanand Paryani’s appeal, directing AO to replace a full Rs. 29,38,600/− cash credit addition with a 12% presumptive income rate, citing failure to calculate peak credit.
The ITAT deleted a Rs. 23.30 Lakh protective addition made in the firm’s hands under Section 68, as the corresponding cash deposit had already been offered to tax by the partners. The Tribunal ruled that once the real recipient (partners) has paid tax, the protective assessment on the firm becomes redundant and cannot lead to double taxation.
The issue was whether the AO could make an addition for unexplained share capital and premium without finding any defect in the extensive documentation filed by the taxpayer. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must make an independent inquiry and bring contrary material; mere suspicion or non-appearance cannot override the legal requirement that the addition must be based on a failure to prove the creditor’s details.
ITAT Mumbai orders AO to re-investigate crore unexplained cash deposits in egg trade. CIT(A)’s deletion was reversed due to failure to secure a remand report.
The ITAT ruled that the Rs. 5.97 crore received by a charitable trust for a cultural event were tax-exempt donations, not business income hit by Section 2(15) proviso. The Tribunal held that TDS deduction or invoice issuance does not change the essential charitable character of the receipt, relying on a binding Delhi High Court judgment.
The ITAT confirmed the deletion of a Rs.1.84 crore addition on demonetisation cash deposits, ruling they were genuine sales proceeds. The Tribunal held that since the audited books were accepted and the cash increase was explained by business changes, the addition based on mere suspicion was invalid and caused double taxation.
The Tribunal nullified four assessment years (AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19, 2021-22) due to serious legal defects, including unsigned/mechanical approvals and non-supply of mandatory sanction and underlying material. This ruling emphasizes that defective procedure is fatal to both reopening and regular assessment proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal {ITAT} Delhi set aside the CIT{A}’s order, remanding the addition of ₹5 crore under Section 68 back for fresh scrutiny. The issue revolves around Charan Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. receiving share capital at a high premium from 13 companies that the Assessing Officer (AO} suspected were paper companies due to unserved statutory notices.
