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 : Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key...
Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore reverses addition of ₹12 lakh under Section 68, accepting sales as the source of cash deposits made during demone...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided fo...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that when the sale consideration as per conveyance deed and circle rates are different, matter must be referred to...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur held that addition of the amount already recorded as cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash deposits under s...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition, treating share application money as unexplained income, based on surmises and conjectures witho...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
A recent ITAT Mumbai ruling in Mehboob Amirali Kamdar vs. ITO demonstrates that the absence of actual money receipt and an accounting mistake can prevent a Section 68 addition.
Nayagi Fireworks Ltd. vs. ACIT case, where cash deposits of Rs. 99.50 Lacs were disputed and ITAT provides an opportunity to substantiate source.
Read the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order regarding the penalty under Section 271 in the case of Harson Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2015-16.
In the Archana Rajendra Malu vs. ITO case, ITAT Pune upheld the denial of tax exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act due to sham transactions with paper companies.
In the Sonam Rajesh Rateria vs. ITO case, ITAT orders re-adjudication due to non-consideration of the Assessee’s unsigned reply to a notice under section 147.
In the case of J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITAT Delhi removes Income Tax addition under section 68 for cash deposits during demonetization, citing no abnormal sales.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as Assessing Officer duly carried out all the inquiry before passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on wrong and irrelevant facts recorded under the reasons recorded for the formation of belief of escapement of income chargeable to income tax is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
In a case involving Smt. Madhuvalli Lakamraju vs. ADIT, ITAT Hyderabad deletes the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of source for cash deposits.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act treating share transactions as bogus merely on the basis of statement of the broker is unsustainable and bad-in-law.
