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...
Kolkata ITAT remits case of Dahisar Traders Pvt Ltd vs ITO due to failure in substantiating identity & fund source, demanding re-adjudication. Full order details.
Bangalore ITAT’s ruling on cash deposits during demonetization raises questions on verification methods. Learn about the case between ITO and Shri Chatrapati Shivaji.
Mumbai ITAT directs AO to reconsider immunity from penalty u/s 270AA for Prathamesh Vivek Khot vs ITO. Error in Form 68 caused delay. Detailed analysis & implications.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely based on the investigation report without concluding the nature of alleged accommodation entry is unjustifiable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition invoking the deeming provisions of section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unjustified as nature and source of undisclosed income/ investment duly explained by the assessee.
In Brightstar Vincom Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Kolkata ITAT emphasizes independent inquiry by AO before adding under section 68 of IT Act.
ITAT Delhi’s order on Trident Towers Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT addresses the deletion of addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, citing submission of requisite documents.
In Bharat Agro Industries Vs DCIT, New Delhi ITAT questions the logic of treating sales as bogus when purchases are genuine and stock is accepted.
New Delhi ITAT explains that Explanation 3 to Sec 147 can’t justify additions unrelated to reasons for reopening. Read the detailed analysis.
ITAT Delhi held that in absence of mentioning the date of handing over of material, date of satisfaction note shall be considered for the purpose of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act and completion of assessment thereafter.
