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 a recent ruling ITAT Delhi partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and modified the order passed by the AO is modified to restrict the unaccounted income by applying 0.3% of the total credits received during the year.
Gauhati High Court held that discharge of burden by assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is question of fact and not substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal is not maintainable.
The Investigation Wing had carried out investigation with regard to the price manipulations and generation of bogus long term capital gains in number of stocks, classified as penny stocks.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed revenue’s appeal by concluding that approach of CIT(A) in singularly dismissing each piece of evidence, we find, is totally incorrect. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter of bogus accommodation entry afresh.
The Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition or disallowance on the issues as the Assessing Officer was not supposed to examine any other issue except the issue for which the scrutiny assessment was ordered.
Kolkata Bench of ITAT ruled in ACIT Vs Pujita Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. that Section 68 of IT Act is applicable when credit is received in the relevant year not for earlier years.
As noticed earlier, the provisions of sec. 147 of the Act makes it mandatory that the AO should be clear about the alleged escapement of income while recording reasons for reopening of assessment.
ITAT Delhi remanded the matter back to CIT(A) since CIT(A) failed to examined the validity of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT(A) rightly allowed interest earned from a co-operative bank as eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that no incriminating material found during course of search and assessment is completed during date of search hence addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
