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 considered whether disallowance under section 14A was justified merely because exempt income was earned. It ruled that without corresponding investments in the assessee’s books, section 14A cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the statutory limitation period were invalid. Following the Supreme Courts ruling on reassessment timelines, the entire reopening and resulting additions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on unverified Investigation Wing inputs, factual inconsistencies, and no direct nexus to the assessee’s transactions is invalid. Mechanical reproduction of information cannot sustain reassessment.
Rejecting contradictory treatment, the Tribunal ruled that the Revenue cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the lender’s scrutiny while taxing the borrower under section 68. The addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal confirmed that post-2021 reassessment notices must strictly comply with amended section 151. Non-compliance with the specified approving authority deprives the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction.
Applying the test of human probabilities, the Tribunal ruled that unexplained abnormal sales could not be fully accepted. At the same time, absence of book defects warranted estimation instead of outright section 68 taxation.
The Tribunal ruled that CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding a completed scrutiny assessment. The decision clarifies that remand powers apply only to Section 144 assessments, not regular ones.
ITAT Delhi held that cash is duly recorded in the books of accounts hence addition of the same under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Appeal of the revenue dismissed.
The issue was whether the appellate order properly dealt with bogus purchase additions. ITAT held that a non-speaking NFAC order violating section 250(6) must be set aside.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from genuine sales already recorded in books cannot be taxed again as unexplained money. The key takeaway is that such additions amount to impermissible double taxation.
