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...
Addition under section 68 of short term capital loss on sale of shares alleged as bogus on the basis of investigation wing report was not justified as the transaction of purchase and sale of shares were supported and evidenced by Bills, Contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements, ledger accounts of brokers and payment of STT, etc., and the transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by AO in earlier years.
Principal CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) Hon’ble SC held practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the cloak of share capital/premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a higher onus is required to be placed on […]
In the matter f Issue of Share at High Premium AO should not resort to rely on circumstantial evidence or on test of human probabilities but on factual evidence of passing of benefit to the shareholders/directors. Hence ITAT remanded the matter back to AO to re-assess whether the assessee was used as a vehicle to pass on the benefit to the shareholder / director.
Addition under section 68 on mere reason of non-production of directors in the person of shareholder companies was not justified and AO had not brought any cogent material on records in assessment order to demolish the copious evidences furnished by assessee.
Shri Srinivasa Reddy Yenumula Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) As regards the addition of Rs.18.00 lakhs towards unexplained investment is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engg. & Construction Co. reported in (1972) 83 ITR 0187 wherein […]
Addition made under section 68 consequent to notice issued under section 153C was deleted because the AO had initiated assessment proceedings under section 153C for the relevant assessment years without pointing out or referring to any seized document belonging to those years and, therefore, there was no prima facierationale or logic behind issuing the said notice.
DCIT Vs Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We have considered the issue and find that this section does not cover section 68 of the Act. Thus, the Legislature does not envisage any sort of valuation for the purpose of section 68 of the Act. Indeed, valuation of preference shares is a completely different exercise […]
Bogus Capital gains- Order is against the principle of natural justice in as much as the order has been passed taking the statement of person as base, the copy of which is not made available to the assessee. Further, opportunity to cross examine the concerned person was also not provided to the assessee.
Transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts, statutory returns are duly filed with regard to allotment of shares. Documentary evidence proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is provided. Addition under section 68 not possible.
CIT(A) has in his order relied upon circumstantial evidence and human probabilities to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called rules of suspicious transaction
