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...
No addition under section 68 for cash amount explained by assessee as derived from sale of agricultural produce (Assessment Year: 2009-10) – [Naresh Kumar v. ITO Date of Judgement : 08.03.2019 (ITAT Delhi)] Assessee has explained source of the cash deposit in the bank account. Copies of the bills of sale of agricultural produce are […]
ACIT Vs S.P. Singla Construction P. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 68 Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeal under Section 6 of the Income Tax Act and held that that assessee discharged its initial onus to prove the identity of the Investors, their creditworthiness […]
More Credit Securities (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 has noted that assessee has filed the copies of the returns of income for A.Y. 2010-11 of all the applicants, copies of their audited balance-sheets […]
DCIT Vs Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the order dated 29th November 2019, passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the […]
In our view no addition under section 68 of the Act on account of share capital could have been made only if addition under section 56 of the Act on share premium was also made. This is because Assessing Officer had no reasons to belief that income has escaped assessment under section 68 of the Act being cash credit on account of share premium or share application money or share capital as the case may be.
Smt. Tapasi Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that all the four donors who had given the gifts in question to the assessee during the year under consideration were engaged in the business and in the returns of income filed regularly for the year under consideration, the business income earned by them was […]
Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The reopening has been challenged by the assessee stating that initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the income tax act is solely on the basis of the unverified, on rectified, unsubstantiated and unconfirmed statement of Mr Malu. It is further the claim of the assessee that […]
Madhu Solanki Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, First of all, the outstanding balances related to the purchases made during the year under consideration and not brought forward balances. The AO did not get reply from both the trade creditors and hence he proceeded to assess the outstanding balances, while accepting the purchases […]
A transaction needs to be proved to be genuine by the person who substantially asserts the same. Once the assessee has been called upon to prove the genuineness of the trading of the shares leading to LTCG gain, the onus lies upon him which he fails to discharge in the present matter.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal, erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) by deleting the addition of Rs.11,39,00,000/-made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by disregarding that the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the share applicants in question ?
