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...
In response to the notice under Section 263, assessee argued that the issue had already been examined during reassessment proceedings and that the AO had taken a plausible legal view.
Assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 for AY 2010-11 after making of addition of Rs. 36,092/- on account of wrong claim of deduction u/s. 24 and Rs. 23,43,705/- was also disallowed on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, Rs. 24,22,305/- on account of unaccounted receipts from Shiva Phrama Ltd. and Rs. 2,06,883/- on account of unaccounted receipts received from various companies.
Assessee was a medical professional, filed his returns for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The appeal concerned an addition of over Rs. 179 crore made by AO under section 68 alleging unexplained cash credits in the assessee’s hands.
Entire cash deposits made during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained credit and a reasonable addition of 20% of total cash deposit would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act based on presumptions and concept of human probability without bringing on record any materials linking the assessee in any of the dubious transactions relating to entry is not sustainable.
Both the revenue authorities have accepted the books of accounts, book results could not be disturbed once it is admitted that cash sales are recorded in books and forming part of turnover of the business.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit not sustainable since identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction relating to the share capital sufficiently established.
ITAT rules that cash loans advanced in earlier years cannot be taxed under Section 68 in a subsequent year, overturning the AO’s protective assessment.
In a recent ruling ITAT Mumbai have held that genuineness of sale and purchase of share through stock exchange platform, can not be doubted if AO failed to establish link between assesssee and report of investigation wing.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of entire expenses alleging that assessee has not started its business activity till date not justified since non-generation of income after setting up of business cannot be a ground to disallow expenses.
