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...
Disallowance of ₹28,99,56,987/- towards finance costs on securitization transactions had no basis, as the interest income rightly belonged to the SPVs and not the assessee. Likewise, the addition of ₹1,61,82,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE was unjustified since the cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes represented genuine loan repayments from microfinance borrowers and could not be treated as unexplained.
ITAT Delhi held that applicability of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act without initially fixing the addition under any of the charging provisions i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan from M/s Sai Traders were proved through PAN, ITRs, banking trail, interest with TDS, and full repayment. Section 68 addition of ₹1 crore was unsustainable.
ITAT Jaipur deletes ₹6.26 Cr. addition u/s 68, stating it would be double taxation. Tribunal also rules that the CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding the case for verification of already submitted documents.
The ITAT Raipur has set aside an addition under Section 68 on a salaried employee’s demonetization cash deposit, citing a lack of evidence by the CIT(A).
The ITAT Mumbai upheld deletions of additions made under Section 68, ruling that share trading losses and profits, declared as business income and supported by documentation, could not be treated as unexplained income based solely on penny stock allegations.
ITAT Delhi rules against double taxation, deleting a Rs.50.18 lakh addition after finding that cash deposits were sourced from sales already accepted and taxed.
ITAT Delhi rules recorded cash sales are not unexplained income under Section 68, preventing double taxation, even during demonetization, if books are accepted.
The ITAT Delhi quashes a tax assessment against Dazzle Developers P. Ltd., ruling that an assessment on a dissolved company is legally invalid.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses Revenue’s appeal, quashing a Rs.ｹ116.01 crore bogus sales addition to Pel Industries Ltd. as the assessment reopening was invalid and time-barred.
