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...
ACIT Vs. Brindavan Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) It is seen that the appellant has filed sufficient documents e.g. Permanent Account Numbers, bank statements, etc. to establish the identities of the four share applicants. The copies of the bank statements of the share subscribers wherein the transactions are reflected as well as the fact that […]
Usekiwi Infolabs Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The facts clearly shows that assessee has got an investment from Kstart LLC, Mauritius as a contribution towards issue of 20,000 compulsorily convertible preference shares having face value of ₹ 10 each at a premium of ₹ 827.50 per share. For this proposition the bank account of […]
Shares at premium were issued by assessee-company to other companies in lieu of shares held by those companies and since no cash was involved in these transactions and transactions were entered into in books of assessee-company by way of journal entries, AO was not, therefore, justified in making addition under section 68.
Nirja Khatuwala Vs ITO (ITAT Gauhati) I note that the out of total outstanding credits of Rs. 2,23,89,337/-[total number of sundry creditors were eleven (11)], the Assessing Officer was not satisfied about the genuinity in respect of credit worth Rs. 34,35,509/- i.e. only in respect of three sundry creditors which comes to 16% of total […]
Network Synthetics Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is observed that the assessee has discharged its initial onus to prove the identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties by filing all these documents. The Tribunal in assessee’s group cases while deleting the additions made u/s. 68 of the Act observed as […]
Ritin Lakhmani Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case The ld. Pr. CIT has simply cut and pasted para 5 to para 5.12.3 and also para 6 from the orders he had passed u/s 263 of the Act from the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act in the case of […]
Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The issue under consideration is whether addition made u/s 68 on the ground that the share capital received is seen not a genuine credit is justified in law? ITAT states that section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition as made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of gifts u/s 68? Addition u/s 68 Justified for Unexplained Gifts Received from Non Related Donor.
AO was duty bound to provide opportunity of cross-examination of witness, if he relied on statement of such witness to decide against assessee, particularly when it was demanded by assessee. Illegality crept in, the moment request for cross-examination was denied.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made u/s 68 for assessee helped various beneficiaries in providing accommodation entries in relation to capital and expenses is justified in law?
