Income Tax : Learn about unexplained cash credits under Section 68, tax implications, key legal cases, and compliance requirements to avoid pen...
Income Tax : Understand the applicability of Section 68 (cash credit) and Section 69 (unexplained investments) under the Income Tax Act with re...
Income Tax : The Sections by which the assessees are suffering too much due to high pitched assessments passed by NFAC are from 68 to 69D and 1...
Income Tax : Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key...
Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore reverses addition of ₹12 lakh under Section 68, accepting sales as the source of cash deposits made during demone...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided fo...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that when the sale consideration as per conveyance deed and circle rates are different, matter must be referred to...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur held that addition of the amount already recorded as cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash deposits under s...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition, treating share application money as unexplained income, based on surmises and conjectures witho...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
It was claimed that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, reasons recorded under Section 147 were vague, and proper show-cause notices were not issued, violating Section 144B.
It was argued on behalf of assessee that PCIT is wrong in concluding that return filed u/s 44AD did not envisage the maintenance of any Books of Accounts. Section 68 can be invoked only if there is any entry in the Books of Accounts.
ITAT Ahmedabad directs CIT(A) to decide the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) due to delay filing of Form No. 67 to be decided with other pending appeal of the same assessment year. Accordingly, matter remitted to CIT(A).
In the matter abovementioned ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after observing that no proper opportunity was given to assessee and assessee was able to substantiate the additions made by AO if opportunity may be granted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 68 towards cash credits not justified since evidences clearly demonstrates that cash deposits and credit entries are through agricultural income. Accordingly, addition deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act deleted since appellant has satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the credit. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT deleted addition made on account of undisclosed cash deposits during demonetization period after observing that assessee has substantiate means of income for depositing cash.
Assessee claimed to have submitted details / documents / explanation as required by AO for the purpose of assessment in the case of assessee under section 143(3) during the course of assessment proceedings.
Case was reopened after recording proper reason. Assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.03.2022, wherein addition of Rs.1 Crore was made in respect of unexplained investment in the immovable property.
Assessee filed return for AY 2013-14 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was reopened based on information received from investigation unit that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries and bogus LTCG.
