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...
Respective court was of the view that section 68 has no application because the same had already been taken in income of the assessee so it no where remains undisclosed. Moreover the assessee has duly discharged its onus to prove the credit worthiness of the donor by giving the list of the same
Assesse submitted, the additions made as cash credits being in nature of trade credits on account of purchase of sunflower seeds, thus, are not in the nature of cash credits as envisaged under section 68 and the same therefore cannot be added to the income of the assessee by invoking the said provision.
In the case of Xerces Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, ITAT Pune held that assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough.
Where assessee surrendered unexplained income voluntarily even after receiving notice u/s 143(2) and the AO had not brought any evidence on record to prove that there was concealment of income, whether levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified.
Assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act are not a game of hide and seek. The inquiry in the wake of a notice under Section 148 is not an empty formality. It must be effective and with a sense of purpose.
Assessee had declared an income by filing its return. The said return was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the basis of AIR. Assessment u/s 144 was made, resulting in an addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- as the assessee was found to have failed to explain the source of investment.
In the assessment order passed u/s.144 the income was at Rs.12,96,457/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,20,000/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO found that there was a cash deposit of Rs.11,76,457/- in the bank account of the assessee maintained with ICICI Bank.
The only issue here is the addition of Rs.60 lacs made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained credit on account of the share application money. On going through the facts of the case, we notice that assessee has filed the relevant details which it could have filed in support of its contention
Share Application Money or deposit in the current account cannot be included in the definition of deposit so as to trigger provisions of sec 269SS of the Income Tax Act,1961. Brief facts of the case were that the assessee company was in the business of construct ion of the hotel.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer observed that the addition of Rs 13,80,000/- was made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act which does not form part of any specific head of income and is also not business income, therefore brought forward unabsorbed depreciation cannot be allowed set off against the same.
