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...
This case involved a ₹1 crore cash deposit treated as unexplained by tax authorities. The Tribunal ruled that since the deposit was sourced from earlier withdrawals, the addition was unsustainable.
It was held that documented capital contributions supported by affidavits, bank records, and land evidence are explained credits. Assessing authorities cannot disregard undisputed financial capacity.
The appellate order confirmed loan additions without addressing the Rule 46A plea. Holding this to be a serious procedural defect, the Tribunal set aside the order for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal reviewed an addition based on demonetisation-era cash deposits despite detailed hospital records being produced. It ruled that ignoring cash books and patient registers was unjustified.
The issue was whether a trader declaring income under Section 44AD could face additions for unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee, holding such additions contrary to law.
The issue was whether share capital could be added in a completed assessment without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in an unabated year, additions are barred absent incriminating material.
Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
This ruling clarifies that repayment of loan with interest, coupled with documentary proof, negates allegations of unexplained cash credit. Mere suspicion without defects in evidence cannot sustain an addition.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited during demonetisation came from genuine business sales already offered to tax. It held that taxing the same amount again under Section 68 and Section 115BBE would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal held that estimating commission income without corroborative evidence is unsustainable. Audited accounts and consistent interest income showed genuine business activity, leading to deletion of the addition.
