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 Kolkata held that mere non-production of director cannot be the ground for making any addition in the hands of assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside assessment order on demonetization cash deposits, citing natural justice violations. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Chennai sends case back for reassessment as the assessee was not given a final opportunity to explain cash deposits in bank accounts for AY 2012-13.
Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
Explore the ITAT Jaipur decision in Mujmmeel Vs ACIT, examining Section 263 order invoking unexplained investments and its implications on tax assessments.
Delhi HC dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming that cash sales during demonetization, accounted for and taxed, cannot be treated as unexplained income u/s 68.
Delhi High Court held that approval accorded in terms of section 153D of the Income Tax Act in a mechanical manner without application of mind is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and assessment order quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan is untenable since loans accepted were repaid in the same year and all the transactions were carried out through banking channels. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Addition made in the case of assessee was held to be unjustified. Assessee had established and satisfied all the three ingredients being identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of share capital contribution to explain credit in terms of provisions of section 68.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Mahadev Dairy Pvt. Ltd., deleting ₹25 lakh addition under Section 68. The loan from promoters was found genuine.
