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...
Assessing the full cash component of a property sale in the hands of one legal heir was found to be factually incorrect, leading the Tribunal to delete the addition. The appellate authority confirmed that the proceeds were jointly receivable by all co-owners and could not be attributed to the Assessee exclusively as unexplained credit.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the assessee discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by proving the lender’s identity and creditworthiness via banking channels and subsequent repayment with interest. It was held that doubts regarding the lender’s own creditors are irrelevant for the assessee’s assessment prior to the 2022 amendment, provided the primary transaction is genuine.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s omission to verify whether the land sold fell within municipal limits made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying Section 263 revision.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained when the AO had already accepted the related cash sales as part of audited turnover. Since stocks, sales, VAT records, and cash books were undisputed, the addition amounted to double taxation. The entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by a partner could not be taxed as unexplained when authorities failed to verify the assessee’s evidence. Both the AO and CIT(A) ignored cash flow records and bank statements without conducting inquiry. The addition was deleted for violating principles of natural justice.
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Additions made by the AO and CIT(A) during demonetization were deleted, preventing double taxation.
ITAT held that although the assessee attempted to justify cash deposits as scrap sales, lack of key supporting records justified only a partial lump-sum addition. Key takeaway: Section 68 additions must be proportionate to actual evidentiary gaps.
Tribunal held that demonetisation cash deposits represented genuine business sales and could not be taxed as unexplained income under sections 68/115BBE. Only ₹25 lakhs was sustained due to incomplete explanation, with the remaining addition deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT’s sanction under section 151 was granted before the AO recorded reasons to reopen the assessment, violating mandatory procedural requirements. As the jurisdictional defect went to the root, the section 148 notice and entire section 147 reassessment were declared void ab initio.
The order reiterates that mere unusual price movement or high returns do not convert a scrip into a penny stock. With identical facts earlier examined and accepted, the Tribunal followed precedent and removed all additions.
