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 assessment proceeded on a fundamentally incorrect factual premise regarding the date of deposit. ITAT ruled that such an error warrants remand for fresh examination of cash source and sales genuineness.
The reassessment was triggered without examining invoices, bank entries, TDS data, or business records. The Tribunal held that mechanical reopening based on external information is bad in law.
The Revenue invoked section 115BBE on alleged unexplained cash. The Tribunal held the provision to be prospective and barred its application for the year under appeal.
Demonetisation-era jewellery sales were questioned as invoices mentioned buyers only as cash. The ITAT remanded the matter to verify buyer identity, stock linkage, and genuineness before sustaining any addition.
The ITAT accepted that repayment strengthens genuineness under section 68. Unrepaid loans with missing financial details were sent back for fresh verification.
The assessee failed to file returns for two years preceding the capital increase. The Tribunal held that unexplained capital accretion must be taxed under section 68.
The dispute centered on unexplained investment taxed in an incorrect year. The Tribunal ruled that such an addition is legally unsustainable and must be deleted.
The case involved alleged bogus purchases backed only by invoices and bank payments. The Tribunal held that without confirmations, transport evidence, or delivery proof, such purchases cannot be treated as genuine.
The case involved a massive section 68 addition sustained solely due to non-admission of evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that procedural lapses cannot override substantive justice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held reassessment invalid as it was initiated merely on Insight Portal data and third-party statements without verification or application of mind.
