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 evidences relied upon by AO in the form of excel sheets did not constitute adequate evidence to draw adverse inference against tassessee, in the absence of any other corroborative evidences.
Assessee was a private limited company registered as a non-banking finance company (NBFC) with the RBI, engaged in providing loans, advances, and dealing in shares and securities.
The petitioner is a legal heir of late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh who filed the original return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31.08.2015. Late Mahasukhlal Navnidhlal Parekh expired on 30.09.2019.
However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued and therefore, AO completed the scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee for the AY 2017-18 as best judgment assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and passed the assessment order.
ITAT Jaipur allowed Naval Kishore’s appeal, ruling that no additions could be made under Section 153A, as no incriminating material was found during the search.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan sustained as creditworthiness of the lender not proved. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee dismissed.
The onus was on assessee to demonstrate the extent of such assets which could be explained as having been acquired through funds which had been disclosed to the Department.
ITAT Delhi held that error of bringing an amount of Rs.12,10,692/- to tax instead of the undisclosed amount of Rs.27,00,00,000/- is assessment made without proper enquiry and hence assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue so revision order u/s. 263 sustained.
The failure of assessee to make the requisite disclosures in Schedule D would neither detract from the relief which had been accorded by AO nor change the factum of carry forward and set off as forming part of the assessment order.
Revision order was remanded back for re-examination of assessee qualification as venture capital as where the amount had been received from the Venture Capitalists, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable.
