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 observed that once the Revenue accepted sales arising from the same goods, it could not entirely disallow purchases as bogus. The decision emphasized the importance of stock records, invoices, and transport documents.
ITAT Delhi deleted a Rs. 50 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding that the investor company had directly responded to notices and furnished supporting documents. The Tribunal held that the identity, genuineness, and source of investment were adequately proved.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that outstanding sundry creditors could not be treated as unexplained cash credits when the assessee demonstrated subsequent repayment through banking transactions. The Tribunal found the Revenue’s partial acceptance of the same transactions inconsistent.
The Tribunal deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after substantially deleting the unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68. It held that penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition is largely removed and the remaining amount is estimated.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiating penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Lakshmi Rice Mills.
Mumbai ITAT held that genuine outstanding trade liabilities arising from accepted business transactions cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that once purchases and expenses are accepted, corresponding creditor balances cannot be taxed separately.
The Bangalore ITAT accepted the assessee’s explanation that medical issues and expiry of the digital signature certificate caused the delay in filing appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not deprive an assessee of an opportunity to contest major additions on merits.
The ITAT held that credits received in the assessee’s bank account were repayments of earlier advances and not unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the transactions were supported by bank records and financial documents.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation that unspent cash withdrawn for labour and petty expenses was redeposited into the same bank account. The Section 68 addition was consequently deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
