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...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions solely on the ground of absence of incriminating material without examining the evidence on merits. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after verification of the assessee’s claims.
The Tribunal held that documentary evidence established the genuineness of the share transactions and the Revenue failed to connect the assessee with any price manipulation. The addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed on the legal ground.
Tribunal held that allegations relating to client code modification did not justify adding the entire purchase value under Section 68 in the facts of the case. Following its earlier decision, it upheld taxation only of the profit embedded in the transactions.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that WhatsApp chats indicating suppressed production for one month could not be extrapolated to the entire financial year without corroborative material. The Tribunal restricted the addition to the profit element for a three-month period.
Tribunal observed that it is for the businessman to decide how to organise business finances unless there is evidence of tax evasion. It deleted the Section 68 addition after finding that the assessee had adequately explained the source of funds.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained solely on information received from the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry or supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition after finding no direct link between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entries.
The ITAT Hyderabad accepted the assessee’s explanation that supporting documents could not be produced because the accountant was unavailable due to his son’s serious illness. It admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.
ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority prescribed by law. The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed.
The ITAT held that Section 68 could not be applied to sale proceeds received from investments already recorded in the books in an earlier year. While the reassessment was upheld, the additions towards alleged accommodation entries and commission were deleted.
