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...
Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Investments Accepted in Earlier Scrutiny Cannot Be Treated as Bogus u/s 68 on Sale—5% Profit Estimation by CIT(A) Deleted; The assessee and the Revenue filed twelve cross-appeals for AYs 2016-17 to 2021-22 against separate orders of CIT(A)-27, Kolkata. The central dispute arose from additions made u/s […]
The ₹8.49 lakh credited for household expenditure from husband was deleted as non-taxable. The unexplained ₹17.80 lakh in the capital account is sent back to the AO for proper verification and opportunity to furnish evidence.
AO treated ₹13 lakh cash deposits as unexplained, but ITAT found all deposits supported by cash book and bank self-cheques. Entire addition under section 68 was deleted.
With all Section 68 additions deleted across the three years, the basis for penalties under Section 271(1)(c) disappeared. The Tribunal directed complete removal of penalties, highlighting that concealment cannot be presumed when additions themselves lack merit. The ruling reinforces the principle that penalty proceedings cannot survive defective assessments.
ITAT Kolkata struck down AO’s whimsical treatment of LTCG as bogus while simultaneously accepting STCG from the same shares. The Tribunal deleted the entire ₹53.24 lakh addition, noting both gains arose from identical transactions and evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that speculative intraday trades are genuine and not accommodation entries. Additions under Section 68 totaling ₹1.25 crore and ₹1.53 lakh were deleted due to lack of foundational facts and proper inquiry.
ITAT Kolkata deleted ₹3.32 crore addition under Section 68, holding that complete documentary evidence proved the genuineness and identity of investors. Low income or meagre business activity of subscriber companies cannot justify treating share capital as unexplained.
The Tribunal held that unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained when identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are fully documented. Since the AO ignored evidence and relied only on non-appearance, the addition was deleted.
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained through duly recorded cash sales supported by VAT returns and stock records. Key takeaway: When books are accepted, cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained.
The ruling directs re-examination of three loan transactions after new evidence was produced for the first time. The loan from one creditor was accepted and the related addition deleted.
