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 ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and completed the assessment without lawful transfer of the case. The reassessment order was set aside.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by producing confirmations, PAN, bank statements and income-tax records. The Revenue’s additions were deleted as no contrary evidence was produced.
The Tribunal held that additions relating to share capital and share premium required fresh examination after considering the assessee’s documentary evidence and offer to produce investor-company directors. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the Revenues appeal after holding that the CIT(A) and ITAT had thoroughly examined the lenders’ creditworthiness. It found no substantial question of law warranting interference.
The ITAT Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction cannot confer valid authority to complete an assessment. It quashed the assessment after finding that the jurisdictional officer also failed to issue a fresh statutory notice.
The High Court held that no addition under Section 68 could be sustained as the Revenue failed to produce material connecting the assessee with the cash deposited in another company’s bank account.
The High Court upheld the ITAT’s order after finding that the Revenue failed to establish any perversity in the concurrent factual findings regarding share capital, unsecured loans and earnest money.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge after the High Court held that the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT on identity, genuineness and creditworthiness were not perverse.
The High Court upheld the ITAT’s finding that the assessee had established the identity of creditors and the genuineness of loan transactions through banking channels. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verification by the Assessing Officer. It upheld the genuineness of the share transactions based on documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
