Section 68

Tax Treatment of Gifts Received By an Individual or HUF

Income Tax - A very common and frequent question running in the mind of taxpayers is the tax ability of gifts. In this part, an effort has been made to discuss the various provisions relating to tax ability of gift received by an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under Income Tax Act. 1. Monetary Gifts: If […]...

Read More

Tax @ 82.50% even if you received amount via proper banking channels

Income Tax - 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...

Read More

Tax Treatment of Cash Credit U/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D

Income Tax - This Article discusses Tax Treatment of Cash Credit,Unexplained investments, Unexplained money, Amount of investments not fully disclosed in books of account, Unexplained expenditure and Amount borrowed or repaid on hundi in cash under section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D respectively of Income Tax Act, 1961....

Read More

No Set off of losses against deemed undisclosed income

Income Tax - In order to avoid unnecessary litigation, it is proposed to amend the provisions of the sub-section (2) of section 11 5BBE to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under the sections 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D....

Read More

Income Tax on Shares Buy Back by Unlisted Companies

Income Tax - 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 ...

Read More
Sorry No Post Found

Mere Cheque payment and establishing ID of creditors is not sufficient to make a loan genuine

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7 Vs Bikram Singh (Delhi High Court) - The use of deceptive loan entries to bring unaccounted money into banking channels plagues the legitimate economy of our country. The mere fact that the identity of the lenders is established & payments are made by cheques does not mean they are genuine....

Read More

Assessee cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong: HC

Shri. Arunkumar J. Muchhala Vs The Commissioner of Income- ­Tax- 8 (Bombay High Court) - S. 68: Argument that the assessee did not maintain books of account and so s. 68 will not apply is not acceptable. It is incumbent on every assessee doing business to maintain proper books of account. It may be in any form. If the assessee has not done so, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of h...

Read More

Section 68: Peak Credit Benefit to accommodation entry provider

CIT Vs D. K. Garg (Delhi High Court) -  The legal position in respect of an accommodation entry provider seeking the benefit of ‘peak credit’ appears to have been totally overlooked by the ITAT in the present case. Indeed, if the Assessee as a self-confessed accommodation entry provider wanted to avail the benefit of the ...

Read More

Onus of ensuring presence of deponent cannot be shifted to assessee

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) - S. 68: Statements recorded u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. A copy of the statement together with the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent has to provided to the assessee. If the statement is retracted and/or if cross-examination is not provided, the statement...

Read More

Addition u/s. 68 justified for Capital introduced by partner in assessee firm from sale of agricultural land with No documentary evidence to substantiate sale

R.A. Himmatsinghka & Co. Vs. Asst. CIT (Patna High Court) - AO cannot look into source of source, i.e., of third party only, however assessee’s case was different as the party was closely connected with the assessee. Firm as a partner thereof assessee clearly failed to produce the sale deeds of the sale of agricultural land by partner therefore was justifi...

Read More
Sorry No Post Found

Section 68’s Popular Posts

Recent Posts in "Section 68"

Mere Cheque payment and establishing ID of creditors is not sufficient to make a loan genuine

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7 Vs Bikram Singh (Delhi High Court)

The use of deceptive loan entries to bring unaccounted money into banking channels plagues the legitimate economy of our country. The mere fact that the identity of the lenders is established & payments are made by cheques does not mean they are genuine....

Read More

Assessee cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong: HC

Shri. Arunkumar J. Muchhala Vs The Commissioner of Income- ­Tax- 8 (Bombay High Court)

S. 68: Argument that the assessee did not maintain books of account and so s. 68 will not apply is not acceptable. It is incumbent on every assessee doing business to maintain proper books of account. It may be in any form. If the assessee has not done so, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Burden lies on the assesse...

Read More

Tax Treatment of Gifts Received By an Individual or HUF

A very common and frequent question running in the mind of taxpayers is the tax ability of gifts. In this part, an effort has been made to discuss the various provisions relating to tax ability of gift received by an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under Income Tax Act. 1. Monetary Gifts: If […]...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Section 68: Peak Credit Benefit to accommodation entry provider

CIT Vs D. K. Garg (Delhi High Court)

 The legal position in respect of an accommodation entry provider seeking the benefit of ‘peak credit’ appears to have been totally overlooked by the ITAT in the present case. Indeed, if the Assessee as a self-confessed accommodation entry provider wanted to avail the benefit of the ‘peak credit’, he had to make a...

Read More

Onus of ensuring presence of deponent cannot be shifted to assessee

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

S. 68: Statements recorded u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. A copy of the statement together with the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent has to provided to the assessee. If the statement is retracted and/or if cross-examination is not provided, the statement has to be discarded. The onus of ensuri...

Read More

Addition u/s. 68 justified for Capital introduced by partner in assessee firm from sale of agricultural land with No documentary evidence to substantiate sale

R.A. Himmatsinghka & Co. Vs. Asst. CIT (Patna High Court)

AO cannot look into source of source, i.e., of third party only, however assessee’s case was different as the party was closely connected with the assessee. Firm as a partner thereof assessee clearly failed to produce the sale deeds of the sale of agricultural land by partner therefore was justified in making addition under section 68....

Read More

Bogus share capital: If document shows genuineness of transaction it cannot be treated as bogus for non appearance of shareholder

CIT Vs M/s. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

The balance sheet and profit and loss account of these persons discloses that these persons had sufficient funds in their accounts for investing in the shares of the Assessee. In view of these voluminous documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the Assessing Officer would not negate the case of the Assessee...

Read More

Bogus share capital: Discharge of Onus & Law on not giving cross-examination

Arceli Realty Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

if relevant details of address or PAN Identity are furnished to the Department along with the copies of shareholder register, share application form, share transfer register etc, it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable explanation by assessee....

Read More

Bogus share capital: AO cannot ignore document submitted by assessee

Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

In the present case, the assessee has been able to prove identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Therefore, the authorities below should not have made or confirmed the addition of Rs. 5.75 crores in the hands of the assessee. ...

Read More

Mere furnishing Shareholders ID not sufficient to discharge onus u/s 68

M/s. B.R. Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

In B.R Petrochem Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO, the division bench of the Madras High Court held that mere furnishing of identity of shareholders by the asseessee would not sufficient to discharge their onus under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. While confirming the addition made against the assessee, the bench ruled that the assessee must prove the ...

Read More
Page 1 of 1712345...10...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,507)
Company Law (3,439)
Custom Duty (6,634)
DGFT (3,475)
Excise Duty (4,049)
Fema / RBI (3,276)
Finance (3,476)
Income Tax (25,171)
SEBI (2,753)
Service Tax (3,286)

Search Posts by Date

October 2017
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031