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 found that an off-market transaction, by itself, does not establish bogus capital gains when supporting records are intact and no direct involvement in price manipulation is shown. The exemption under Section 10(38) was therefore allowed, rejecting additions under Sections 68 and 69C.
Rakesh Arora Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) When the Reason Falls, the Case Falls: Rs. 3.14 Cr Trigger Proves False — ITAT Delhi Quashes Whole 147 The reassessment for AY 2012–13 was triggered solely on the allegation that the assessee had received accommodation entries of ₹3,14,16,000 from M/s Shreyas International. However, at the time of completing […]
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the AO relied on outdated investigation data without linking it to the assessee’s transactions. Since the information pertained to a period before the assessee even acquired the shares, the reopening lacked jurisdictional foundation. As a result, the entire addition for alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 263 cannot be invoked when the PCIT himself does not conduct the verification he insists was missing. It reaffirms that revision requires demonstrated lack of inquiry, not assumptions.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based on third-party search without giving the assessee a chance to examine evidence violated natural justice, deleting ₹2.04 Cr and ₹64.11 Lakh for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20.
ITAT struck down ₹17.5 lakh salary disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) because the AO relied on a statement of a different person. Standalone statements without corroboration cannot sustain additions.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on Section 50C was unsustainable because the provision applies only to sellers, not purchasers of property. With the very foundation of reassessment failing, the addition based on circle-rate difference was deleted. The ruling underscores that incorrect legal assumptions cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
The Tribunal deleted the Section 68 addition after finding no material linking the assessee to any accommodation-entry scheme. All documentary evidence—demat records, broker notes, and banking channels—supported genuine share transactions. The ruling reiterates that suspicion or probability cannot override verified evidence.
The ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation could not be taxed u/s 68 when all sales were recorded, verified, and supported by stock and VAT records. Since books were audited, accepted, and showed no defect, the addition of ₹12.20 crore based on mere averages was unsustainable. The ruling confirms that documented cash sales cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credit.
ITAT ruled that reopening was bad in law as reasons cited property purchases, while additions related to cash credits—showing no live nexus. The case reaffirms that reassessment must be based on specific, relevant material.
