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 Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) rightly restricted disallowance on account of unexplained bank deposit and withdrawal under sectio...
Income Tax : Held that the invoices issued by the assessee contained a barcode. A barcode on a tax invoice serves as a verification mechanism, ...
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 : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
Since the receipt of loans, repayment and payment of interest thereon had been made through regular banking channels from account payee cheques and no deficiencies whatsoever were found in the documentary evidences submitted by assessee, therefore, no addition of loan amount could be made under section 68
In view of the above mentioned parameters, ITAT found that the appellant has not been able to discharge even the basic onus to prove the genuineness of cash credits in his bank accounts. Therefore, in their considered view when the existence of the source of such cash deposits is not proven then the A.0 is fully justified in treating such cash deposits as unexplained and liable to be taxed.
We note that the fact that neither the statement relied on by the authorities below were provided to the assessee nor any cross examination was allowed to prove the veracity of the statement. We note that the fact that in the statement of third party, the name of the assessee was not implicated. Even otherwise, according to Learned Counsel, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee on the basis of untested statements without allowing opportunity of cross-examination.
ACIT Vs Rohini Hotel (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) A perusal of the Page Nos. 6-13 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee shows that the assessee has filed certain reconciliation statements in respect of the shortfall of investments u/s. 68 added by the AO. The same are scanned and made a part of […]
Where the documentary evidences furnished by assessee clearly supported the claim of exemption under section 10(38) on account of sale of securities that assessee entered into genuine transaction of sale of shares through recognized exchange upon which STT had also been paid and there was no other evidence available on record against assessee so as to make the impugned addition under section 68, accordingly, addition was to be deleted.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 68 on account of share capital and share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
Addition made under section 68 on account of share capital received by assessee as unexplained credit was to be deleted in absence of any material or inquiry conducted by AO that the issuing companies were non-existing entities or a paper company and AO had not brought material on record to dislodge the veracity of the evidences filed by assessee.
Where assessee had furnished relevant evidences such as copies of bank statement, demat account, share purchase documents and share certificate., etc., to prove its bogus long-term capital gain on sale of shares and no adverse material had been brought on record by AO to disprove the claim of assessee, addition made under section 68 on account of unexplained credit could not be sustained.
Addition under section 68 made by AO of the entire share capital and premium received during the year on the basis of negative observation about availability of funds with share applicant was unjustified as the share applicant was the sister concern of assessee, from whom similar share application with premium were received in the earlier year and the balance sheet of the share applicant showed ample source of funds.
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the decision of CIT(A) for deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act?
