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...
Where assessee having received share capital furnished evidences, i.e. addresses, PAN No., copies of returns and bank statements of subscribers, etc., AO was not justified in treating share application money as unexplained without rebutting such evidences.
ITO Vs M/s. Necleus Steel Private Limited (ITAT Delhi) In this case, assessee received an amount of Rs.67.50 crores from M/s. Unitech Ltd., as advance against the sale of the property. The assessee filed confirmation from M/s. Unitech Ltd., along with its bank statement and acknowledgment of filing of the ITR with balance sheet. The […]
Zion Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The investment in the share of the assessee company by the above five companies whose directors appeared before the Assessing Officer and whose statements were recorded and full details were filed substantiating the identity and creditworthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of […]
DCIT Vs M/s. Karthik Construction Co. (ITAT Mumbai) As could be seen, the Assessing Officer raised suspicion on the loan repayment by doubting the genuineness of the unsecured loan availed by the assessee against which such loan repayment was made. However, as per the facts on record, unsecured loans which were repaid by the assessee […]
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee who derives income from house property and income from other sources, filed her return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 27/07/2010 declaring an income of Rs. 17,75,810/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dated 25/08/2011 was issued and served on the assessee on 06/09/2011. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the information called for.
This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 04.5.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2004-05 on the following grounds:-
Section 68 incorporates only a rule of evidence, placing the onus of proof on the assessee. There have been hardly any amendments in this section since its introduction.
This is an appeal by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Tirupati, dated 31-03-2017, treating the deposits made in the bank account as business turnover, whereas AO was of the opinion that these are unexplained income U/s. 68 of the Act.
