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 issue was whether SBN deposits accepted by a co-operative society during demonetisation could be added under Section 68 solely because the notes ceased to be legal tender.
The ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits during the demonetization period could not be treated as unexplained credits when they originated from duly recorded business sales accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition under Section 68.
The Mumbai ITAT held that no separate addition for alleged bogus purchases was warranted where contract receipts were accepted, substantial gross profit had already been disclosed, and there was no evidence of cash being returned to the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot tax share premium under Section 68 solely on the basis that the premium lacks commercial justification. Valuation concerns fall outside the scope of Section 68 for years prior to the introduction of Section 56(2)(viib).
ITAT Delhi held that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed without establishing a nexus between borrowed funds and non-business use. The absence of supporting evidence led to deletion of the addition.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and absence of direct incriminating material supported the assessee’s LTCG claim.
The Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment proceedings was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)’s directions to verify fund flow, bank statements, and lenders’ creditworthiness before making additions. The Tribunal found the remand approach legally justified and free from infirmity.
ITAT Chandigarh held that the assessee could not establish the authenticity of the purchase transactions underlying the LTCG claim. The inability to satisfactorily explain the acquisition of shares led to denial of exemption under Section 10(38) and confirmation of the addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced complete evidence proving allotment, holding, dematerialization, and sale of shares through the BSE. Since the Revenue failed to disprove these documents or establish any manipulation by the assessee, the LTCG exemption could not be denied. The additions under Section 68 and for alleged commission were deleted.
