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 ruled that after primary evidence is furnished, the assessee is not required to prove the source of source under section 68, especially where the AO fails to conduct enquiry u/s 131 or 133(6).
The Tribunal upheld deletion of unsecured loan additions where the appellate authority independently examined lender details. The key takeaway is that CIT(A) can call for and rely on necessary evidence to decide appeals on merits.
he Tribunal observed that confirmation of additions without examining affidavits and tax returns of close relatives is legally flawed. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the purpose of revision is to protect revenue interests. When no tax demand arises in consequential proceedings, the revision order no longer calls for adjudication.
he tribunal held that an appellate order based on an incorrect and reconstructed timeline of statutory notices is unsustainable. Errors in sequencing of notices strike at the root of jurisdiction and require fresh adjudication.
Pune ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) after the assessee argued that adequate opportunity was not provided to explain the source of funds received. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication with proper hearing and liberty to file supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced 60% tax rate cannot apply to transactions before 01.04.2017. For AY 2017-18, unexplained cash additions relating to earlier transactions are taxable only at 30%.
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after April 2021 were valid. The Tribunal held that notices issued beyond the surviving time limit were barred, rendering all reassessment proceedings void.
Demonetisation cash deposits cannot be taxed merely on suspicion when supported by statutory VAT/Excise records, sales growth, and business expansion. Rule 46A(4) empowers CIT(A) to call for such evidence without triggering procedural violations.
The issue was whether foreign bank balances funded through LRS could be taxed as unexplained credits. ITAT held that once the source and opening balance are established, section 68 cannot be invoked merely on peak-credit theory.
