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...
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus capital gains from penny stocks was not justified as AO had not conducted any independent and separate enquiry to prove that the transactions carried out by the assessee were not genuine or that the documents were not authentic and assessee had successfully discharged the onus cast upon him by provisions of section 68.
Where assessee had duly substantiated that it had earned a profit from commodities transactions along with complete details supporting the same, AO was not justified in treating the commodity transactions a fictitious arrangement with its associate concerns and adding the income as an unexplained cash credit under Sec.68.
Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Indore) Admittedly the appellant has received the amount in question and the amount is duly deposited in the bank account of the appellant and the appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the said deposits in his bank account and hence the investment in the […]
PCIT Vs Ajay Jaysukhlal Mehta (Gujarat High Court) In a situation in which assessee and it’s proprietorship concern are maintaining separate books of accounts – as in the present case, an assessee may have his own capital of ‘x’ amount, and yet his capital contribution in capital account of a proprietorship concern can be more […]
Pr. CIT Vs Adamine Construction (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The material on record in the form of the orders of the lower appellate authorities disclosed that both the assessee and later the share applicants (upon receiving notice under Section 131 of the Act) had produced documentary proof. These included the assessments and income-tax returns […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court ) Supreme Court in this Case upheld the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Income Tax Department. High Court held that AO did not dispute the veracity of the documents produced. Furthermore, the two individuals who […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) It is relevant to state that AO in his remand report dated 10.10.2016 did not dispute the veracity of the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and further learned CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences purely on technical ground which is wholly […]
Where AO was of the view that a shareholder of assessee-company had no means to make the subscription of share capital, AO could have asked the source of investment from the shareholder and if the source was not properly explained, addition could have been made in the hands of shareholder as unexplained income but no addition could be made u/s 68 in the hands of assessee-company since it had discharged the initial onus cast upon it by virtue of provisions of section 68.
CIT Vs Maheshchandra G Vakil (Gujarat High Court) HC held that Where assessee proved genuineness of share transactions by contract notes for sale and purchase, bank statement of broker, demat account showing transfer in and out of shares, as also abstract of transactions furnished by stock exchange, Assessing Officer was not justified in treating capital […]
When assessee received advances from customers and the same were subsequently adjusted against goods sold to them, then, the advances could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68, therefore, addition under section 68 made by AO on account of unexplained cash advances was deleted.
