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...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unsecured loan where loan was repaid is unsustainable, whereas, addition where assessee failed to demonstrate repayment or interest payment to creditor sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that accommodation entries in the nature of bogus unsecured loans is liable to be added as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 confirmed.
CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
AO noted that the assessee was unable to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, AO applied section 68 and added into total income and applied tax rate as per section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly assessed income was determined at Rs.75,49,764.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) on sale of shares rightly disallowed as assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction and long-term capital gain on sale of shares was an arranged affair to convert its own unaccounted money.
ITAT Delhi held that External Development Charges (EDC) is an advance collected to provide common facilities and other services to the prospective flat owners. Since, the same is collected on approval of HUDA, it cannot form part of Profit and Loss Account. Accordingly, addition towards the same rightly deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that restriction of addition to Rs. 1.45 crore from Rs. 9 crore towards unexplained cash credit on account of share application money by CIT(A) justified as the same was based on evidences.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved. Appeal dismissed in absence of substantial question of law.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed investment in shares and unsecured loans merely based on observation made by DCIT without independent inquiry by AO is unjustified and hence the addition is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on reliance placed on third party statement without any corroborated evidence is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, issue restored to AO for de novo adjudication.
