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...
ITAT Kolkata held in ITO Vs Happy Structure Pvt. Ltd. that share application amount cannot be added twice under Section 68 of Income Tax Act in in payees & recipients’ hands u/s 68
Satyam Smertex pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata): Addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) are based on conjectures and surmises, so their impugned action cannot be justified.
If AO adopts a plausible view, even if two views are possible, the assessment cannot be deemed erroneous merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion.
Assessee has placed sufficient documents and materials on record to prove identity and creditworthiness of shareholders and genuineness of transaction of receiving share capital and share premium, invoking provisions of Section 68 of was not justified
Where it has been sufficiently established that share applicants had substantial creditworthiness and investments had been made by assessee’s own sister concern/group companies having mostly common directors and thus, establishing creditworthiness and genuinity of investments, additions under section 68 had been rightly been deleted.
Once source of funds is taxed in the hands of share applicant companies, it cannot be added as unexplained income in the hands of assessee company.
Explore the full text and detailed analysis of Shah Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO case from ITAT Kolkata. Understand the implications, legal arguments, and outcomes in tax assessment disputes.
Explore ITAT Kolkata’s ruling on no addition for share capital & premium from group companies with common directors/shareholders. Detailed analysis & conclusion
ITAT Kolkata’s order in ITO Vs Indus Realty Pvt. Limited – Mere suspicion or disbelief on the part of Assessing Officer is insufficient to justify additions under Section 68. The identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions must be thoroughly evaluated and substantiated with concrete evidence.
Explore the detailed analysis of the ITO vs. RKB Services Pvt. Ltd. case by ITAT Kolkata. Learn about the implications for share capital additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
