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...
Undisclosed income is the income which the assessee has not shown in his Income Tax Return and thereby not paid income tax on it. The primary objective of the Income tax department is to detect such undisclosed income and bring the same under the tax net. If the Assessing Officer detects cash credits, unexplained investments, […]
Explore Amit Acharya’s case at ITAT Ahmedabad involving unexplained cash credit and disputed capital gains. Understand the key findings and decisions.
Addition under section 68 on aacount of entire credits shown by assessee in form of realization from debtors was justified as the onus was primary on assessee to prove that the said cash was sourced by realization from debtors, which had not been proved by assessee except making an oral statement and taking credence from the entries passed by him in the books of accounts.
ACIT Vs Thatavarthi Ramesh Babu Kanuru (ITAT Visakhapatnam) It is no doubt true that the initial burden is upon the assessee to prove the correct value of the stock held by the assessee and he has to prove that the value reflected in the books of accounts is correct but the fact remains that the […]
Once receipt of share capital had been accepted as genuine within the ken of section 68 there was no reason for AO to doubt share premium component received from the very same shareholders as bogus in view of the fact that assessee had duly discharged burden cast on it to prove genuineness of transaction and identity and creditworthiness of share subscribers.
Sunshine Metals & Alloys Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 68 Bogus share capital- Assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants. The assessee has also furnished its bank statement to show that the money was received through banking channels and there […]
Whether Additions u/s 68 merely on the ground that the assessee could not produce the directors of the share subscribing companies is sustainable.
The provisions of section 68 cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be asked to prove the 3 ingredients of cash credits in respect of sundry creditors.
The assessee is a company and is in the business of investment. An addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, were made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the sources of funds for the share capital received by it at a premium. On appeal the ld.
Since no assessment was pending on the date of search and addition had been made on basis of post-search enquiries and statements recorded under section 132(4) on various persons, therefore, AO had no power to assume jurisdiction under provisions of section 153A as no incriminating material was found.
