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 : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : ITAT held spousal gift taxable under Section 68 due to lack of evidence on genuineness, bank trail, and donor capacity despite Sec...
Finance : The Supreme Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister despite objections from his wife and children. The C...
Income Tax : Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subse...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court ruled that while authorities could verify documents during transit, absence of an e-Tax Invoice did not confe...
Income Tax : The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the unsecured loan along with interest after deducting TDS and the lender had o...
Income Tax : Tribunal ruled that future projections under DCF method cannot be tested solely against later actual financial performance. It obs...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
Kishan Kothwal Vs ITO (Telangana High Court) HC held that The parameters for making addition under Section 68 of the Act and under Section 69A of the Act, though may appear to be similar, however, is not so; therefore, addition of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act would stand on a different pedestal. […]
DCIT Vs Aarti Catalyst Solutions P. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) In the present case on hand, the assessee has discharged his onus by providing details relating to the loan amount availed from the three creditors by producing their bank accounts, Income-Tax Returns, confirmation letters, etc. The AO has doubted source of the creditors thereby the AO […]
In peak, the withdrawal of cash, if not utilized elsewhere, is considered as available for making deposits. The highest unexplained cash deposit is considered as peak. The determination of peak reduces the taxable income. However, where withdrawals are through cheques and it is not proved that such withdrawals have come back to the pocket of the assessee, then benefit of those withdrawals will not be available to explain the deposits.
Fortigo Network Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, both the additions, i.e., addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and sec.68 of the Act relate to the share premium amount, i.e., both the additions arise out of common issue only. The assessee has also filed certain additional evidences. We earlier […]
Unsecured loan– It is seen that merely because the Lender Company had substantial funds through borrowings, AO suspected the Assessee to have created layers of intermediaries to bring in Unaccounted money, and on the basis of such suspicion, drew adverse conclusion against the genuineness of the Unsecured Loan and treated it as Unexplained merely on the basis of such suspicion.
It is proposed to amend the provisions of section 68 of the Act so as to provide that the nature and source of any sum, whether in form of loan or borrowing, or any other liability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider. However, this additional onus of proof of satisfactorily explaining the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a well regulated entity, i.e., it is a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company registered with SEBI.
Ram Avtar Bansal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in the aforementioned bank accounts. In his reply, the assessee accepted that the gross receipts of Rs. 60,02,800/- belong to him and simultaneously submitted a revised return on 18/1/2015. The gross receipts were shown as income from […]
PCIT (Central) Vs Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 1. Dismissing a bunch of appeals against deletion of addition u/s 68 towards Share capital/ share premium, bogus purchases and deposit in bank account, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide judgment delivered on 19.01.2022 (yesterday) has held that where the ITAT decided the matter based […]
Arun Duggal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Brief facts of the case are that information has been received from investigation division of the Income Tax department with regard to the two bank accounts maintained by the assessee which have not been disclosed to the Income Tax Department. Based on the information received, the Assessing Officer having […]
Abhinav Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Snapshot of Basic modus of providing bogus LTCG 1. Merger of Unlisted companies with Listed Entity: This is the most preferred option for the persons willing to operate for the purpose of doing Long Term capital Gains. In case of the mergers with listed companies, the merger petition has […]
