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 was whether demonetisation cash deposits can be taxed as unexplained credits solely due to use of SBN. The ITAT held that proper explanation and records negate automatic addition under section 68.
The tribunal held that reassessment fails if no addition is made on the issue cited for reopening. Additions on unrelated grounds were declared beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that incorrect invocation of Section 69A does not invalidate the addition. Since the loan was found to be an accommodation entry, it was sustained under Section 68. The decision emphasizes substance over technical defects.
ITAT held that the assessee discharged the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. Addition was deleted as AO relied only on suspicion without evidence.
ITAT remanded the matter where the assessee claimed PAN misuse leading to additions under Sections 68 and 69. It directed AO to verify the police report, holding that relief must be granted if misuse is substantiated.
ITAT upheld addition under Section 68 as the assessee failed to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loans. It ruled that mere submissions without proper evidence do not discharge the initial onus, and addition was rightly sustained.
ITAT set aside the addition made under Section 68 due to incomplete verification of a large gift transaction. It remanded the case for fresh examination with proper evidence and opportunity.
Tribunal set aside addition as the assessee established genuineness of loans through documentary evidence. However, it remanded the case to verify whether loans were repaid.
ITAT held that stamp duty value on registration date cannot be applied where allotment occurred earlier. Allotment date determines valuation under Section 56.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
