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 Raipur held that addition as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in as much as the assessee company has duly discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the investor company.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act untenable as AO failed to conduct any investigation or enquiry in respect of information submitted by the assessee. AO also failed to conduct independent investigation and simply relied on third party statements and facts.
ITAT Amritsar held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is beyond jurisdiction as the amount is already declared as turnover and the said turnover is reflected in the books of account.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act sustained as the appellant failed to provide any explanation with regard to the nature and source of the credit.
Calcutta High Court held that warehousing agency namely CWC (Central Warehousing Corporation) is statutorily entitled to demand and collect rent for the storage on the date when goods were entrusted to the custody of CWC.
ITAT Delhi held that as per partnership deep, partners shall be entitled to interest on their loan accounts with the firm at the prescribed rates, hence disallowance of the same is unjustified.
ITAT Chennai held that when assessee has explained the source for excess stock found during the course of survey, then, income offered towards excess stock cannot be treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Act.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition based on such retracted statement of third person and that too without giving any opportunity of cross examination to the assessee deserves to be deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessing income post completion of assessment u/s 143(3) without any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search is unsustainable. Accordingly, addition thereof is liable to be deleted.
AO has no right to calculate sales on hypothetical basis ignoring the evidence submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. Once the amount is declared as turn over cannot be called concealed income and be taxed doubly on same amount. The addition U/s 68 is beyond jurisdiction of the ld. AO as the turnover is already reflected in the books of the assessee.
