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 ITAT deleted a Rs.1.30 crore addition, ruling that the reassessment was invalid because the reason for reopening (payments made by the assessee) was entirely different from the reason for the final addition (loan received by the assessee). The Tribunal held that an addition made on a new, unrecorded reason renders the reassessment proceedings unsustainable in law.
ITAT Kolkata held that passing of reassessment order without issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and not jurisdictional. Accordingly, order quashed and addition is deleted.
The core issue was whether the Revenue could make a Section 68 addition when the same share investors and identical facts were previously validated by the ITAT in earlier years. The Delhi ITAT upheld the principle of judicial consistency, confirming the deletion of the full addition and concluding that without new evidence, the genuineness of the share application money stands proven.
Where temporary loans received and repaid through banking channels, with identity and creditworthiness of lender proved, the sa,e could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Reliance on third-party statements without cross-examination was invalid.
ITAT Jaipur held that surrendered income during survey cannot be treated as unexplained income or money u/s. 69 & 69A of the Income Tax Act and tax in accordance with provisions of section 115BBE. The same has to be assessed to tax under ‘business income’.
ITAT Delhi held that mere presence of blank cheque without there being any other evidence, proving earning of any income or making of any capital transaction, the same cannot be treated as income. Accordingly, ground raised by revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal deleted the entire tax addition, relying on a binding coordinate bench decision that accepted the LTCG on the same scrip (Tuni Textile) under identical facts. This ruling emphasizes judicial discipline and holds that the Revenue cannot ignore established jurisdictional precedents and High Court rulings allowing LTCG when the transaction is supported by concrete, demat-based evidence.
The ITAT allowed the LTCG exemption, confirming that the department cannot ignore binding jurisdictional High Court judgments and its own precedent on the exact same scrip and issue. The ruling firmly establishes that if all compliance conditions are met, the Revenue cannot reject a capital gain claim based on general allegations of price manipulation without independent, concrete evidence against the assessee.
The ITAT granted relief by ruling that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied to income voluntarily disclosed during a survey if no specific unexplained cash credit or investment section (like 68 or 69) was invoked. The Tribunal held that the disclosed income remains taxable, but only at normal tax rates.
The ITAT ruled that loose, uncorroborated diaries maintained by a third party are dumb documents and cannot be the sole basis for major tax additions or the denial of Section 11 exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion is not a substitute for proof, and denying Section 11 requires concrete evidence of a violation under Section 13.
