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...
Explore the CESTAT Delhi ruling on Weldon Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Service Tax, revealing no service tax liability on outbound tours. Full analysis provided.
Mumbai ITAT’s ruling in Vijay Suresh Dave Vs DCIT regarding addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Detailed analysis of the case and conclusions.
Learn how issuance of a jurisdictional notice in the name of a non-existing entity led to the quashing of reassessment proceedings by the ITAT Delhi.
ITAT held that if sales are not disputed and there is no discrepancy between purchases and declared sales, addition should be restricted to bring gross profit on alleged bogus purchases in line with other genuine purchases.
Assessee had issued share application money and subsequently allotted shares which showed that the transactions were genuine and there was no material brought on record by tax authorities that the assessee had benefited from round-tripping, therefore, ITAT had deleted the addition made u/s 68.
In the case of Pukhraj Nathmal Jain Vs ITO, ITAT Mumbai deletes addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, as the source for deposits made during demonetisation period was substantiated.
In DCIT vs. CDS Infra Projects Limited, ITAT Delhi ruled no addition under section 68 of Income Tax Act if proper evidence for source of share capital subscription is submitted.
Assessee had miserably failed to establish genuineness of the transaction by cogent and credible evidence and that the investments made in its share capital were genuine.
In ITO Vs Saivi Finance Pvt Ltd, ITAT Delhi restores the matter back to AO due to denial of natural justice, assessees not given chance to cross-examine persons whose statements were used against them.
Discover the conditions for issuance of a reassessment notice u/s 153A beyond six years & explore the detailed analysis of ACIT Vs Goldstone Cements Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) case.
