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 tribunal held that advances received from customers for future services cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. Once the assessee proves identity, nature, and business purpose, Section 68 addition fails.
The Court held that self-assessment tax paid due to failure of an initial IDS declaration must be treated as payment under the revived Scheme, preventing double taxation of the same income.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal solely on account of unexplained delay, leaving the High Court’s decision undisturbed and reinforcing procedural discipline in tax litigation.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions where share sale transactions were supported by contract notes, demat records, and bank statements, and no contrary evidence was found.
The Tribunal ruled that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied retrospectively for demonetisation-period transactions. As the tax effect at normal rates fell below the monetary limit, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The assessment relied on investigation reports without examining the alleged entry provider. The Tribunal held that cross-verification is essential before sustaining additions under section 68.
The issue concerned treating business creditors as unexplained cash credits due to non-response to notices. The Tribunal held that corroborative balance sheets and ledger evidence warranted fresh verification, and remanded the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed under section 153C without incriminating material found during search. Additions based solely on third-party data were ruled invalid.
The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition has been deleted. Once the foundation fails, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must also fall.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance can be made when ample interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that diversion cannot be presumed without establishing a nexus with borrowed funds.
