Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules unaccounted customer deposits, with traceable identities and commercial substance, are liabilities, not income ...
Income Tax : Penny stocks, often associated with small, illiquid companies, have been a subject of concern due to their susceptibility to price...
Income Tax : Learn about unexplained cash credits under Section 68, tax implications, key legal cases, and compliance requirements to avoid pen...
Income Tax : Understand the applicability of Section 68 (cash credit) and Section 69 (unexplained investments) under the Income Tax Act with re...
Income Tax : The Sections by which the assessees are suffering too much due to high pitched assessments passed by NFAC are from 68 to 69D and 1...
Income Tax : Thereafter, there was change in incumbent and fresh opportunity was provided and notice u/s.142(1) was issued. But this notice was...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by treating LTCG as bogus merely on the basis of assumption a...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable as assessment made by AO af...
Income Tax : The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim on one side as landowners and Mr. Abdul Khader K (on behalf o...
Income Tax : ITAT Jodhpur partly allows appeal in Kishana Ram vs ITO, upholding additions related to capital discrepancies and agricultural inc...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
Penny stocks, often associated with small, illiquid companies, have been a subject of concern due to their susceptibility to price manipulation. The Income tax Act, 1961, contains provisions such as Section 68 (Unexplained Cash Credits) and Section 10(38) (Exemption on Long Term Capital Gains LTCG) to prevent tax evasion through sham transactions involving these stocks.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee just needs to establish that the amount has come from the bank account of the cash-creditors. Assessee is not required to prove the source of the amount in the bank accounts of the cash creditors. Thus, addition u/s. 68 deleted since genuineness of transaction proved.
During the course of search and seizure operation, several incriminating documents related to the assessee were found and seized from the residential premises of Shri Prashant Bongirwar.
ITAT Jaipur held that invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since AO duly verified investment and payment of ESI/PF.
DCIT Vs Meridian Chem Bond Private Limited (ITAT Pune) Does Proving the Three Main Ingredients by Assessee U/S 68 Shift the Burden of Proof On AO? Assessee is a company that duly files its return of income. The Revenue carried a search in case of another group concern & it was discovered that it was […]
ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses ITO’s appeal against Sun Gold Capital Ltd due to low tax effect under CBDT Circular 09/2024. Key issues include Section 148 and cash credits.
ITAT Lucknow rules that additions under Section 68 require incriminating evidence. ₹2 crore cash credit addition against Ocean Dream Infrastructures is deleted.
ITAT Pune rules that ₹10 lakh from truck sale via banking channel is not unexplained cash credit under Section 68, setting aside CIT(A)’s findings.
Bombay HC rules unexplained bank credits are taxable under Sec 68. Orders probe into accommodation entry racket by Buniyad Chemicals.
The Assessee is aggrieved by the information received pursuant to application under Right to Information Act, 2015, whereby the Assessee became aware that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not resumed proceedings in respect of AY 2007-08.
