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 Delhi rules that deletion of unsecured loan additions under Section 68 is procedurally flawed if AO is denied opportunity to verify fresh evidence. Matter remanded for de novo examination.
ITAT Mumbai set aside orders taxing a money changer’s Rs.219 crore turnover, holding that neither u/s 68 addition nor arbitrary profit estimation is valid without verifying recreated books.
The Tribunal ruled that the crore addition, made solely because the assessee’s petrol pump was allegedly unauthorized to accept SBNs, was incorrect. Since the cash deposits were sourced from historical, recorded cash sales accepted by the AO, taxing the deposits again would constitute impermissible double taxation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that payment of non-compete fees to retiring partner is revenue expenditure. Accordingly, considering the same as capital expenditure not justifiable. The appeal is allowed to that extent.
The ruling establishes that the AO cannot selectively accept total sales and profit figures while disbelieving a corresponding cash deposit from those sales without rejecting the books or providing concrete proof of bogus entries. Treating the recorded cash deposits as unexplained income is illegal double taxation.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded Dhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd.’s case for fresh assessment, directing the AO to reverify ₹14.39 crore in unsecured loans and creditors under Section 68.
ITAT Hyderabad in Pitti Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT quashes a reassessment for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The order holds that notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) instead of the Faceless AO (FAO) after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme 2022 are void ab initio.
The ITAT Kolkata confirmed the deletion of a ₹4.04 Cr addition under Section 68 against Eskag Sanjeevani, ruling that documented unsecured loans received and fully repaid through banking channels cannot be deemed bogus.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of a RS.4 crore addition made under Section 68 against Livros Publishing Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the share application money received through banking channels from a listed NBFC.
The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) cannot set aside a reassessment order framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as the limited power to remand only applies to best-judgment assessments under Section 144. The Tribunal sent the penny stock LTCG case back, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on its merits.
