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...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that non-compliance to notices issued u/s. 250 by CIT(A) resulted into delayed appellate proceedings. Accordingly, cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the assessee for lack of diligence.
On appeal CIT (A) observed that assessee used different PAN in Form 35 instead of one used for reassessment. Assessee neither file return in response to notice u/s 148 not it complied with the statutory notices.
ITAT Agra held that ex-parte dismissal of appeal, as notices issued by CIT(A) were not compiled, without adjudicating issues on merits is in violation of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, order set aside and matter remitted back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands Vinodchandra Dahyabhai Darji’s tax case for fresh adjudication after finding denial of a hearing in a faceless appeal process.
ITAT Mumbai upholds CIT(A)’s decision favoring Jay Bharat Mehta, rejecting unexplained cash credit addition and affirming Section 54F deduction eligibility.
The Sections by which the assessees are suffering too much due to high pitched assessments passed by NFAC are from 68 to 69D and 115 BBE. Many orders are struck down by the High Courts through writs and majority of the orders are appealed against and are cancelled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The brief contents of the relevant sections are given below:
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards section 68 of the Income Tax Act deleted as assessee discharged initial onus by proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) on alleged bogus LTCG untenable since disallowance is based on general report of the investigation wing. Thus, addition u/s. 68 deleted due to lack of adequate evidence disallowance set aside.
ITAT Kolkata rules that no additions can be made in completed assessments under section 153A without incriminating material seized during the search.
In the abovementioned matter ITAT remanded the matter to AO after observing that assessee failed to apply under rule 46 A (Additional Evidence) of the IT Rules.
