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...
no addition on account of cash credits be made, where assessee had given PAN of creditors, their confirmation and their bank statement which established their creditability. By following the same judgment, direction issued to AO to delete the addition.
In the case of CIT vs Anshikha Consultants Pvt Ltd, Delhi High Court held that whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance.
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of Perfect Paradise Emporium Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO that If creditors are found bogus then the amount can be added back to income u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits or us 41(1) as business income.
In the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Soni Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur bench of ITAT have held that that in case of share capital, the creditworthiness along with genuineness of transaction, identity of person is also required to be proved by the assessee.
In these cases there are 18 different assessees who filed appeal before ITAT aggrieved from the order u/s 263 passed by CITs. In original proceedings AO passed orders with nominal additions after investigation by way of summoning various subscribers to share capital of assessee companies.
In the present case there were the three issues which were decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal where it was held that whenever the transactions have been made through proper banking channel, then invocation of section 68 will not be valid.
Whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance Instead, the issue was whether the amount invested by the share applicants were from legitimate sources.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High court held that the proceedings of re-assessment could be made if full and true facts have not been disclosed earlier. Also, it was held that section 68 could be invoked if the genuineness of parties are not proved.
Once assessee has submitted documents related to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction the onus of proving share application as bogus shifts on the revenue. If revenue fails to prove further then assessee connote be treated as bogus.
In the case of ITO Vs. Sh. Mahender Singh, ITAT Delhi has held that addition cannot be made for Cash deposits in the bank account received against sale of land as undisclosed investment for mere failure of Assessee to Produce
