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...
Hiralaxmi Ishwarlal Mehta Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT noted that the assessee already disclosed the bogus long term capital gain claim on sale of penny stock shares under income disclosure scheme. The sum so disclosed was Rs. 16,20,156/-. The cost of these shares was Rs. 30,673/- which was a component of the total sale proceeds […]
Additions made primarily on basis of oral evidence of third parties, without giving fair opportunity of hearing and right to cross-examine those parties to assessee not sustainable
Zeeshan Azizmohmed Shaikh Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Both SEBI and BSE corroborated the fact that Kailash Auto Finance Ltd was not a genuine company – LTCG exemption u/s 10(38) denied – addition u/s 68 sustained Facts- The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading in paper. The assessee filed its […]
AO cannot make additions only on the basis of minimum income declared by the parties, because the income earned by person cannot decide quantum of loan that a person can give
Calcutta High Court order on Penny stock in which Department’s appeal in penny stock case has been allowed. The Orders of AO and CIT(A) have been restored. Reversed the order of ITAT. The Court Held that : 1. The assessees cannot take shelter under the opinion given by the experts as it is not the […]
ITAT Ahmedabad cancels penalty on Anisha R. Dhanani. Unexplained cash credit addition lacked accurate particulars. Bona-fide explanation considered.
PCIT Vs Anmol Stainless Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) We find from the order passed by the tribunal that the assessing officer has complied with the direction issued by the CIT(A) and has given effect to the order and no adverse finding has been recorded by the assessing officer and accordingly the addition was deleted. […]
ACIT Vs Durga Granites (ITAT Hyderabad) ITAT held that if the partners of the assessee-firm had introduced the cash in their respective books and thereafter transferred the same to the books of the assessee firm then probably the onus may be on the partners of the assessee firm to establish the source of the cash […]
ITAT held that as the assessee by placing on record the aforesaid documentary evidence had duly discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it, therefore, the A.O without dislodging the same on the basis of any material and/or evidence could not have held the amounts therein received as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act.
Law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him.
