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 case addressed whether recorded purchases of ₹4.55 crore could still be treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that without evidence of off-book investments, section 69 has no application.
The ITAT held that unsecured loans totaling ₹1.05 crore could not be added under Section 68 where the AO failed to make any inquiry or issue summons, emphasizing that suspicion alone cannot justify additions.
The issue was whether an unsecured loan could be treated as unexplained despite evidence on record. ITAT Delhi held that the appellate authority erred in ignoring uploaded documents and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from recorded pharmacy sales during demonetisation cannot be added under section 68 when turnover is accepted and duly taxed.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were held genuine where supported by EMI recoveries from thousands of borrowers, with no enquiry or evidence to treat them as unexplained.
Lenders had confirmed loans in response to statutory notices, yet additions were made. The Tribunal upheld deletion by CIT(A), stressing the importance of uncontroverted confirmations. The ruling reinforces evidentiary discipline in Section 68 cases.
The High Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal as the tax effect was below ₹2 crore, applying the CBDT monetary limit circular and leaving the Tribunal’s deletion of the Section 68 addition undisturbed.
Court ruled that repayment of sums in cash violates Section 269T and attracts penalty under Section 271E, even when the same sums were treated as income under Section 68 in an earlier assessment.
The ITAT restored the case for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee filed a return showing a loss and was not given proper opportunity to be heard before dismissal of appeal.
The court ruled that once purchases are found unproved, restricting additions to a profit percentage is incorrect. Full disallowance is required under Section 69C where genuineness is not established.
