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 reassessment notice issued within four years was wrongly quashed by applying amended law. The Tribunal restored the matter, emphasizing correct application of applicable provisions.
The court examined whether buy-back of shares below fair market value attracts Section 56(2)(x). It held that buy-back leads to extinguishment of shares, not acquisition of property, making the provision inapplicable.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions as the AO failed to provide evidence or conduct independent verification. The ruling highlights the need for substantiated findings in reassessment cases.
The assessee explained cash deposits through corresponding withdrawals supported by books and bank records. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal confirmed addition of unexplained investments where the assessee could not substantiate the source of deposits. The ruling reinforces the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held that mere suspicion of bogus transactions without supporting evidence cannot justify addition under section 68. Proper documentation of sales and purchases led to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that a claim admitted at the appellate stage must be examined on merits and cannot be denied merely due to time lapse. The case was remanded for fresh verification.
The issue was whether demonetization cash deposits were unexplained. The Tribunal held that deposits from recorded business sales cannot be taxed under Section 68.
Interest earned on funds kept in bank during business setup, when those funds were directly linked to the project, was a capital receipt and not taxable as “income from other sources
Applying the computation method laid down in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal found the notice was issued late. The ruling confirms that delayed notices are void even with extended timelines.
