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...
The issue under consideration is whether the addition on account of advances from customers treating the same as unexplained liability (Section 68) is justified in law?
For instance, scribbling or rough notings found on loose papers cannot be straightaway classified as ‘incriminating material’ unless the AO establishes nexus or connect of such notings with unearthing of undisclosed income of the assessee. This nexus or connect has to be brought out in explicit terms with corroborative material or evidence which any prudent man properly instructed in law must be able to understand or correlate so as to justify the AO’s inference of undisclosed income from such seized incriminating material.
Yes, in certain case even if assessee received money through proper banking channels still it may attract tax @ 82.50% if assessee could not explain its source, identity and creditworthiness etc of the lender/giver of the amount to the satisfaction of Assessing Officer
Now-a-days Income Tax department investigates alleged trading/investment in shares and securities with collusion/connivance with any listed companies or with share broker by conducting Search/ Survey or by asking details u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is justified in making addition u/s 68 towards alleged unexplained deposit in the bank account in as much as a bank account is not a book of account maintained by the appellant?
As we know, a company is a safer form of doing business. A company is a separate person than its shareholders/ members; it has its own personality and having power to assessed separately. The shareholders or members of the company are the real owners of the assets of the company. The company is doing business for the benefit of its stake holders. The Shareholders may appoint Board
The issue under consideration is whether the Ration Card can be considered as a source of determining financial status of assessee and whether gift from person holding Ration Card of Low Economic class can betreated as unexplained Credit under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
Source of Source – Section 68 In the recent judgement of DCIT Vs M/S. Kejriwal Industries Ltd, I.T.A No.1509/AHD/2016 dated 4-5-2020, Hon’ble ITAT Surat held in favour of assessee. On the issue of section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961, Hon’ble ITAT held that assessee need not prove ‘source of source‘. The relevant part of […]
ITAT Mumbai: Anjana Sandeep Rathi vs. ACIT – Disputed LTCG on share sale. Violation of natural justice. Detailed analysis of the judgment and impact.
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act for the Advances received for booking of commercial space?
