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 held that cash deposits during demonetisation were supported by genuine cash sales of damaged rice, verified through stock records, GST filings, and insurance assessments. The AO’s allegation of bogus sales under Section 68 was rejected for lack of evidence. The ruling confirms that suspicion cannot override documented business transactions.
ITAT held that capital introduced from ancestral land sale cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to absence of a registered sale deed. Agreements to sell, identity records, and transaction details sufficiently proved the source.
The AO alleged concocted sales but brought no evidence, and the CIT(A) also found no discrepancies in the accounts. With complete documentation showing genuine sales and business use of funds, the Tribunal removed most of the addition. Section 115BBE was also ruled inapplicable for the year.
ITAT Delhi held that PCIT’s revision under section 263 on alleged bogus sales was invalid since the same transactions were already under appeal before CIT(A). Substituting the AO’s judgment without showing assessment was erroneous and prejudicial was impermissible.
ITAT Delhi admitted additional evidence proving that bank credits considered unexplained were interest income already declared in returns. The Revenue could not contest the factual reconciliation. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted in full.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹2.10 Cr addition u/s 68 for share call-money; statements not supplied or cross-examined. Identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of subscribers proven; ad-hoc disallowance also deleted.
Delhi High Court held that VAT (Audit) officer, not being jurisdictional officer, are not competent to complete assessment. Accordingly, assessment orders are quashed due to lack of jurisdiction.
Tribunal confirmed that powers to question “source of source” under section 68 exist only from 01-04-2023. Additions on unsecured loans and student deposits were deleted, while TDS disallowance was remanded.
ITAT held that most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
The tribunal ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid, as they fall outside TOLA provisions and are time-barred.
