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 reassessment notice issued within four years was wrongly quashed by applying amended law. The Tribunal restored the matter, emphasizing correct application of applicable provisions.
The court examined whether buy-back of shares below fair market value attracts Section 56(2)(x). It held that buy-back leads to extinguishment of shares, not acquisition of property, making the provision inapplicable.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions as the AO failed to provide evidence or conduct independent verification. The ruling highlights the need for substantiated findings in reassessment cases.
The assessee explained cash deposits through corresponding withdrawals supported by books and bank records. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal confirmed addition of unexplained investments where the assessee could not substantiate the source of deposits. The ruling reinforces the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held that mere suspicion of bogus transactions without supporting evidence cannot justify addition under section 68. Proper documentation of sales and purchases led to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that a claim admitted at the appellate stage must be examined on merits and cannot be denied merely due to time lapse. The case was remanded for fresh verification.
The issue was whether demonetization cash deposits were unexplained. The Tribunal held that deposits from recorded business sales cannot be taxed under Section 68.
Interest earned on funds kept in bank during business setup, when those funds were directly linked to the project, was a capital receipt and not taxable as “income from other sources
Applying the computation method laid down in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal found the notice was issued late. The ruling confirms that delayed notices are void even with extended timelines.
