Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
Income Tax : Explore sections 68 to 69D of Income Tax Act 1961, covering unexplained cash credits, investments, and more. Learn about legal pro...
Income Tax : Explore Section 68 of the Income Tax Act with our comprehensive guide on cash credits. Learn about its purpose, scope, and legal f...
Income Tax : Discover simplified taxation scheme under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act. Learn eligibility criteria, exemptions, and key insights...
Income Tax : Unlock the intricacies of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, unraveling the nuances of unexplained cash credits. Delve into its ame...
Income Tax : Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) If the explanation based on accounts supported by affidavit is not controverted, no addit...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes Income Tax reassessment notice against Deepak Natvarlal Pankhiyani HUF, citing lack of fresh evidence s...
Income Tax : Explore the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order where Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. successfully challenges a ₹3 Cr addit...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Kolkata order in Keshav Shroff Vs ITO (AY 2016-17). Analysis shows why mere suspicion isn't enough ...
Income Tax : Read ITAT Kolkata's full text order on Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO. Learn why old loans converted into share allotment were dee...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer observed that the addition of Rs 13,80,000/- was made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act which does not form part of any specific head of income and is also not business income, therefore brought forward unabsorbed depreciation cannot be allowed set off against the same.
The question pertains to the purchases made by the assessee-respondent. On account of unverifiable purchases, the Assessing Officer made additions to the tune of Rs. 1.27 crores. He was of the opinion that none of the parties could be located and therefore, such purchases were held to be bogus.
Once loss is determined, the same should be set off against the income determined under any other head of income including undisclosed income. Hon’ble ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in the case of M/s. K.R. Automobiles v/s ACIT in ITA No.1972/Ahd/2012 has held that business loss can be set off against the addition u/s.68 of the Act by observing as follows:-
The assessee is engaged in agricultural and allied activity. This company is one of the group companies constituted by Shri B.Ramalinga Raju and his family members. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for the books of account of the assessee
In the case of the assessee, summons issued by the Assessing Officer to the shareholder companies were duly served upon them and the shareholder companies responded to the Assessing Officer by affirming the investment made
The assessee is an individual. The return of income was filed on 29.7.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 36,04,069/- and agricultural income of Rs. 10,25,000/-. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.
Even if the reopening is sustained, the primary burden that income has escaped assessment is on the shoulder of the assessing officer and after discharging this burden only, the onus shifts to the shoulder of the assessee.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company.
It is a fact that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source of the amount found credited in the accounts of loan creditors as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dwarik Dwarikadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd. (supra).
The Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has failed to determine the correctly the hawala Income. The appellant has issued Bills i.e. Sales Bills to the commercial world i.e. the needy persons. Who has paid the appellant the Hawala Commission.
