Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
Income Tax : Explore sections 68 to 69D of Income Tax Act 1961, covering unexplained cash credits, investments, and more. Learn about legal pro...
Income Tax : Explore Section 68 of the Income Tax Act with our comprehensive guide on cash credits. Learn about its purpose, scope, and legal f...
Income Tax : Discover simplified taxation scheme under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act. Learn eligibility criteria, exemptions, and key insights...
Income Tax : Unlock the intricacies of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, unraveling the nuances of unexplained cash credits. Delve into its ame...
Income Tax : Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) If the explanation based on accounts supported by affidavit is not controverted, no addit...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes Income Tax reassessment notice against Deepak Natvarlal Pankhiyani HUF, citing lack of fresh evidence s...
Income Tax : Explore the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order where Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. successfully challenges a ₹3 Cr addit...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Kolkata order in Keshav Shroff Vs ITO (AY 2016-17). Analysis shows why mere suspicion isn't enough ...
Income Tax : Read ITAT Kolkata's full text order on Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO. Learn why old loans converted into share allotment were dee...
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 Chennai held that trade payable appearing in the books of accounts duly explained. Accordingly, addition towards the same u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified and liable to be deleted.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of lenders of unsecured loans.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment proceeding initiated in the name of nonexistent amalgamated company is without jurisdiction, void ab initio and is liable to be annulled.
Delve into the intricacies of the case Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), analyzing the discrepancy between Section 68 and Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Surat held that provision of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act as amended vide Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill 2016 which is effective from 01.04.2017 cannot be applied to search conducted prior to the effective date.
held that no income tax additions can be made when source of investment made against the share capital/ premium/ warrants, stands explained, as assessee and investor companies, have substantiated the same by furnishing evidences and proved the Identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of investor companies.
ITAT Surat held that addition as unexplained investment in the hands of one of the co-owner unsustainable as department didn’t made proportionate addition in the hands of other co-owners.
Ganesh Ganpat Alim Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act should not be made when repayment of loan is made in the assessment year itself. Facts- During the assessment proceedings, AO got information from investigation wing that M/s Delight Diam P Ltd. and M/s Bafna […]
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act are not attracted as the investment by the investor companies is duly explained. Further, identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of investor companies duly proved.
ITAT Raipur held that amount received as a consequence of divorce from the ex-husband could not be held as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, and accordingly cannot be brought to tax u/s.115BBE of the Act.
