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 genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness and identity of creditors not proved, hence addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained credit duly sustained.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, in absence of independent application of mind, invocation of revisionary provisions by CIT unsustainable.
ITAT Pune restored the assessment order as assessee neither filed any evidence nor provided material in an attempt to discharge the onus cast upon it in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune directed addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loans as appellate deliberately withhold information from NFAC and NFAC failed to examine the nature of transaction and passed order in perfunctory manner.
Punjab & Haryana HC upholds Principal Commissioner’s revision under Section 263. Assessing Officer’s wrong Section 44ADA assessment found erroneous.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 on account of unexplained cash credit, being bogus unsecured loan, and u/s. 69C on account of unexplained expenditure, being bogus interest claimed, unjustified as repayment of loans in subsequent year accepted.
ITAT Jaipur condoned delay of 108 days in filing of an appeal, however, imposed cost of Rs. 8,000/- to be deposited in ‘Prime Minister Relief Fund’ (PMRF) as the appellant was not diligent enough to timely file an appeal.
ITAT Bangalore condoned delay of 601 days on the ground that assessee was not having access to mail id mentioned in Form 35 and hence assessee was not aware about ex-parte passing of appellate order. Thus, delay condoned on reasonable cause shown.
Notice under section 148 was issued upon assessee by AO for reassessing the cash deposit as undisclosed income, following approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition merely on the basis of retracted statement without any incriminating material seized from assessee’s premises is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
