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 issue involved cash deposits during demonetization treated as unexplained credit. The Tribunal held that when deposits are backed by recorded sales and identifiable debtors, Section 68 cannot be invoked.
The issue was validity of reopening beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal held the notice issued after the prescribed time was invalid, and quashed the entire reassessment.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear and substantiate claims despite multiple opportunities. It emphasized that procedural non-compliance weakens legal claims.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond 3 years is valid when escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. The ruling held such notice invalid under Section 149, and the key takeaway is strict adherence to limitation rules.
The Tribunal examined whether cash deposits backed by prior withdrawals can be taxed as unexplained income. It ruled that in absence of evidence showing alternative use of cash, the source stands explained.
The Tribunal examined whether demonetisation cash deposits linked to recorded business sales could be taxed as unexplained income. It ruled that once the source is established through books, addition under Section 68 is unsustainable.
The issue involved denial of LTCG exemption based on allegations of penny stock manipulation. The Tribunal held that without direct evidence or nexus, such additions cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that LTCG cannot be treated as bogus merely based on investigation reports. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and stock exchange channels prove genuineness.
ITAT held reassessment invalid due to approval taken from an incorrect authority under Section 151. The ruling confirms that improper sanction makes the entire proceeding void ab initio.
The ITAT upheld ₹90 lakh addition as the assessee failed to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The ruling emphasizes the burden of proof on taxpayers in cash credit cases.
