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...
DCIT Vs Lotus Logistics & Developers Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) In this case ITAT was hearing the dispute related to addition for unexplained cash credit received in the form of share capital under section 68. ITAT observed that on the same issue in a large number of decisions of the coordinate benches held that once all […]
Can capital contribution of the individual partners credited to their accounts in the books of the firm be taxed as cash credit in the hands of the firm, where the partners have admitted their capital contribution but failed to explain satisfactorily the source of receipt in their individual hands?
DCIT Vs Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt Ltd (ITAT Indore) In this case Assessing Officer merely doubted the investment made by the share applicants for the reason that they did not submit any proof regarding agricultural activities done by them. It is therefore quite evident that the Assessing Officer himself accepted the identity of the share applicants […]
ITO Vs Cozy Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Here in this case, the assessee company has received share application money from three parties. Two of them were Directors and one was a corporate entity M/s Omexpo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. In so far as the share application money received from Directors, the AO has held the […]
Kishan Kothwal Vs ITO (Telangana High Court) HC held that The parameters for making addition under Section 68 of the Act and under Section 69A of the Act, though may appear to be similar, however, is not so; therefore, addition of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act would stand on a different pedestal. […]
DCIT Vs Aarti Catalyst Solutions P. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) In the present case on hand, the assessee has discharged his onus by providing details relating to the loan amount availed from the three creditors by producing their bank accounts, Income-Tax Returns, confirmation letters, etc. The AO has doubted source of the creditors thereby the AO […]
In peak, the withdrawal of cash, if not utilized elsewhere, is considered as available for making deposits. The highest unexplained cash deposit is considered as peak. The determination of peak reduces the taxable income. However, where withdrawals are through cheques and it is not proved that such withdrawals have come back to the pocket of the assessee, then benefit of those withdrawals will not be available to explain the deposits.
Fortigo Network Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, both the additions, i.e., addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and sec.68 of the Act relate to the share premium amount, i.e., both the additions arise out of common issue only. The assessee has also filed certain additional evidences. We earlier […]
Unsecured loan– It is seen that merely because the Lender Company had substantial funds through borrowings, AO suspected the Assessee to have created layers of intermediaries to bring in Unaccounted money, and on the basis of such suspicion, drew adverse conclusion against the genuineness of the Unsecured Loan and treated it as Unexplained merely on the basis of such suspicion.
It is proposed to amend the provisions of section 68 of the Act so as to provide that the nature and source of any sum, whether in form of loan or borrowing, or any other liability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider. However, this additional onus of proof of satisfactorily explaining the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a well regulated entity, i.e., it is a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company registered with SEBI.
