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 held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by invoking Section 68 without prior approval. The assessment was quashed as legally unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon were later retracted and lacked corroboration. It held that such statements cannot form sole basis of addition. The ruling emphasizes need for supporting evidence in tax proceedings.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO is valid. The tribunal held that proceedings are void ab initio when jurisdiction had already been transferred under Section 127.
The Tribunal noted that loans were part of regular business transactions with repayments in the same year. It held that such conduct strengthens the claim of genuineness. The case highlights the relevance of transaction pattern in tax scrutiny.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that once additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted, penalty became infructuous. The ruling highlights the dependency of penalty on assessment findings.
The notice issued after the permissible window calculated under TOLA and judicial rulings was held void. The case highlights strict adherence to limitation timelines.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot sustain addition under Section 68 without issuing notice under Section 251(2). It also noted that the AO had already accepted evidences of investors.
ITAT condoned an 820-day delay due to a bona fide jurisdictional mistake. It held that SBN deposits from members cannot be treated as unexplained when the source is properly explained.
The CIT(A) upheld additions without discussing merits or legal issues. The Tribunal ruled that a speaking order is mandatory and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
