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...
The Tribunal held that although the assessee produced documentary evidence supporting the loan, questions regarding the lender’s financial capacity and source of funds required deeper examination. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statements, and tax records, and the Revenue failed to establish any cash trail or nexus with alleged accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the Assessing Officer could not refer property valuation to the DVO when the assessee relied on a registered valuers higher FMV. The capital gains computation based on the DVOs valuation was therefore set aside.
The Bangalore ITAT held that an assessee need not prove that a debt has actually become irrecoverable to claim a bad debt deduction. The Tribunal ruled that a proper write-off in the books of account is enough to qualify for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that an investigation report against a supplier is only a starting point for inquiry and not conclusive proof against the assessee. The key takeaway is that additions require independent evidence relating to the assessee’s own transactions
Where assessee substantiated purchase, holding and sale of shares of YICL through documentary evidence, DEMAT records, contract notes, STT payments and banking transactions, and Revenue failed to establish any nexus between assessee and alleged price-rigging operators, exemption under section 10(38) could not be denied merely on suspicion or penny-stock allegations.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 68 does not distinguish between business advances and loans when unexplained credits appear in the books. The key takeaway is that real estate developers must prove the source and credibility of customer advances.
The Tribunal held that generalized investigation reports cannot substitute for concrete evidence against an assessee. Since the transactions were supported by documents and no direct evidence of undisclosed income existed, the addition was deleted.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer recorded incorrect facts regarding the return filing date and declared income. The Tribunal ruled that such defective reasons could not support a valid belief of escaped income.
The appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to a 43-day delay in filing. ITAT held that medical records substantiated the assessee’s health issues and restored the appeal for decision on merits.
