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...
CESTAT Allahabad rules on LG Electronics India vs Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing procedural violations are not suppression for extended limitation.
Section 54F amendment restricting exemption to one residential house was prospective, applying only from April 1, 2015 and Violation of section 269SS of the IT Act, if any, would call for a separate penalty under section 271D, not an addition under section 68.
Kuna Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT – ITAT Ahmedabad allowed assessee’s appeal, holding that assessee had provided sufficient details regarding identity and creditworthiness of shareholders.
Discover why ITAT Jodhpur ruled that cash deposits made by a 77-year-old assesse during demonetization couldn’t be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
In the case of Rajni Dua Vs ACIT, ITAT Delhi orders reassessment due to discrepancies in property ownership and leasehold rights. Detailed analysis provided.
ITAT Kolkata rules in favor of Sati Promoters Pvt. Ltd., deleting Rs. 1.98 Cr Section 68 addition due to AO’s reliance on non-production of subscribing company directors.
ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of V. K. Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd, quashing the reopening of assessment as wholly without jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The statutory scheme underlying the Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse Regulations, 2019 (MOOWR) could not be construed as seeking to exclude solar power generation in terms of permissions granted under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Merely because the Directors of the two companies were common may have given rise to suspicion that the deposits received by the assessee company from the other, was bogus.
Whether addition made by Assessing Officer under Section 68 was justified, particularly in light of non-response from directors to notices.
