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...
Satyam Smertex pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata): Addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) are based on conjectures and surmises, so their impugned action cannot be justified.
If AO adopts a plausible view, even if two views are possible, the assessment cannot be deemed erroneous merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion.
Assessee has placed sufficient documents and materials on record to prove identity and creditworthiness of shareholders and genuineness of transaction of receiving share capital and share premium, invoking provisions of Section 68 of was not justified
Where it has been sufficiently established that share applicants had substantial creditworthiness and investments had been made by assessee’s own sister concern/group companies having mostly common directors and thus, establishing creditworthiness and genuinity of investments, additions under section 68 had been rightly been deleted.
Once source of funds is taxed in the hands of share applicant companies, it cannot be added as unexplained income in the hands of assessee company.
Explore the full text and detailed analysis of Shah Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO case from ITAT Kolkata. Understand the implications, legal arguments, and outcomes in tax assessment disputes.
Explore ITAT Kolkata’s ruling on no addition for share capital & premium from group companies with common directors/shareholders. Detailed analysis & conclusion
ITAT Kolkata’s order in ITO Vs Indus Realty Pvt. Limited – Mere suspicion or disbelief on the part of Assessing Officer is insufficient to justify additions under Section 68. The identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions must be thoroughly evaluated and substantiated with concrete evidence.
Explore the detailed analysis of the ITO vs. RKB Services Pvt. Ltd. case by ITAT Kolkata. Learn about the implications for share capital additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Mere reliance on statements without corroborative evidence and denying cross-examination rights cannot justify additions for share capital and share premium under Section 68
