Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
Income Tax : This guide explains how unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and related provisions can attract steep taxation under Section ...
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 : ITAT Kolkata deleted the Section 68 addition, holding that share application money already assessed in subscribers' hands cannot b...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal after the remand report confirmed the disputed receipt was sale proceeds of investments...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held Section 68 cannot apply to sale proceeds of disclosed investments already recorded in books. Revenue's appeals wer...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held Section 68 inapplicable where shares were disclosed in an earlier year and sale proceeds were already offered as i...
Income Tax : ITAT Agra held Section 44AD could not apply where turnover exceeded the limit, adopted past profit history, allowed telescoping an...
Income Tax : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
TAT Mumbai held that additions under Sections 68 and 69C could not be sustained where the Revenue failed to establish any connection between the assessee and alleged price-rigging operators. The Tribunal found that the transactions were supported by demat records, banking documents, and stock exchange evidence. The LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) was restored.
ITAT Mumbai upheld the order deleting the addition made on account of alleged unexplained cash credits arising from share sale proceeds. The Revenues challenge against the relief granted to the assessee was rejected.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessees could not substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions underlying the LTCG claims. The additions under Section 68 were sustained after the Tribunal found that the evidence supported the Revenue’s conclusion of accommodation entries.
The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be accepted solely on the basis of loan confirmations. It held that confirmations alone do not establish creditworthiness or genuineness and directed further verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Court upheld deletion of a ₹1 crore addition under Section 68 after noting that the assessee had furnished lender details, source of funds, and repayment evidence. It held that the dispute was purely factual and raised no question of law.
The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of an addition relating to alleged bogus capital gains. The Court found that shares held for over a decade as genuine investments could not be treated as penny stock transactions.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the enhanced 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be imposed on income relating to FY 2016-17. The Court emphasized that the amendment expressly took effect from 01.04.2017 and operates prospectively.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 cannot rest merely on information received from the Investigation Wing or Insight Portal. Since the Assessing Officer conducted no independent enquiry or verification, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The ITAT Kolkata held that cash payments made through agents for procuring paddy from farmers were covered by Rule 6DD exceptions. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata found that the assessees share capital remained unchanged throughout the year and no fresh capital was received. As a result, the addition under Section 68 for alleged unexplained share capital was deleted.
