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 ITAT ruled that when the Revenue accepts business turnover and sales activity, corresponding cash deposits in bank accounts cannot again be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The Tribunal restricted the addition only to estimation of reasonable profit.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer wrongly stated that the original return was never scrutinized. The Tribunal ruled that such factual errors while recording reasons showed complete non-application of mind.
The ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had disclosed sales and provided debtor details. The Tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 would amount to double taxation.
The Delhi ITAT restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee had furnished certain records relating to the unsecured loan transaction. The Tribunal directed fresh examination of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness under Section 68.
The Delhi ITAT deleted addition made under Section 68 on alleged bogus purchases linked to accommodation entry providers. The Tribunal held that purchases and corresponding sales were already recorded in the books, leaving no basis for separate addition under Section 68.
The Kolkata ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the reasons initially supplied related to a different company and the reopening was based on mechanical satisfaction. The Tribunal ruled that borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind cannot justify reopening under Sections 147 and 148.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s claim that the opening capital figure in the earlier ITR was wrongly reported due to omissions of FDRs and bank balances. Since the assets already existed in the preceding year, the addition under Section 68 was held unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the lender confirmed the transaction during assessment and remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer could not doubt the genuineness of the loan. The ruling reinforces that proper documentary evidence carries significant evidentiary value.
The Bangalore ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted statements are insufficient to sustain large on-money additions in search assessments. Additions based purely on estimates without incriminating evidence were deleted.
AO observed an imbalance: the investor companies brought in massive investments but received a minimal percentage of equity, while the promoters retained overwhelming majority control despite investing a lower proportionate amount (Rs. 45 crores)
