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...
ITAT Mumbai ruled that forfeited share application money is a capital receipt, not taxable under Section 68. It also confirmed interest on business funds and disallowed ad-hoc expense additions.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely on account of non-prosecution by the assessee without disposing off on merits is not justifiable. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the deletion of a ₹39 crore addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, finding the assessee had discharged its onus of proof.
CESTAT Mumbai held that double payment of amount of customs duty is only a deposit with government and hence question of applying limitation under section 27 of the Customs Act would not arise. Accordingly, order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai ruled in favor of Darius Sam Motashaw, deleting an unexplained cash credit addition of Rs. 2.85 lakhs. The court found that the assessing officer failed to investigate the source of funds received from the assessee’s broker via a banking channel, shifting the burden of proof incorrectly.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai dismissed an appeal by the Income Tax Department against an assessee, upholding the deletion of an addition of over Rs. 4.24 crore.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act treating unsecured loan as unexplained credit not justified since assessee has proved identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the credit. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Delhi rules Section 68 inapplicable as purchases were genuine and creditors identified. ₹3.36 Cr addition deleted in Shiv Hari Singla vs ITO case.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were explained as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and household savings, and deleted the addition of ₹10,46,500 made under section 69A.
Mere involvement in a flagged scrip, in absence of concrete evidence of manipulation or unaccounted funds, could not justify taxing bonafide transactions. Therefore, the additions under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable.
