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 ITAT held that approval under Section 151 was invalid as the PCIT merely noted As per Annexure without independent satisfaction. The reassessment under Section 147 was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings fail when the Assessing Officer abandons the issue forming the basis of reopening. In such cases, other additions cannot be made without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)s detailed order deleting additions based on proper verification of evidence. All grounds raised by Revenue were rejected, and cross-objection became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that purchases from a foreign supplier were genuine as goods were imported through customs and duly recorded in books. It upheld deletion of addition under Section 68 on this ground.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under Section 148 issued before obtaining mandatory approval under Section 151 is invalid. Since sanction was granted after issuance of notice, the reassessment was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that amounts received were repayments of past advances and could not be taxed as unexplained cash credits in the current year. Additions were deleted as they did not pertain to fresh transactions.
The Tribunal found that advances of ₹50 lakh each were duly recorded, confirmed, and repaid. With no unexplained credit involved, the addition of ₹90 lakh was deleted and the appeal allowed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits made during demonetization cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 if sufficient cash balance is recorded in regular books of account.
The Tribunal held that after submission of primary creditor details, the burden shifted to the AO to disprove the claim. The case was remanded to ensure fair opportunity and proper inquiry.
The Tribunal held that treating part of the disclosed sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit amounts to double taxation. It directed deletion of the addition to the extent linked to the accepted sale consideration.
