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...
Article on Section 68 with recent development in Case Laws in Bombay High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs Alag Securities Pvt Ltd. vide ITA No. 1512 of 2017 dated June 12, 2020 UNXEPLAINED CASH CREDITS, INVESTMENT, MONEY UNDER PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CASH CREDIT [SECTION 68] define as where any sum is […]
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO under section 68 in respect of the deposit of business of wife in their joint bank account is justified in law?
In the present case, Assessee is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries to entry seekers. During the assessement proceedings AO held that the identity of the parties involved in the transactions were not furnished as well as genuineness of the transactions relating to total cash deposits were not satisfactorily explained by the assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition under section 68 is done by AO is justified in law whenm addition was based on third party statements which were retracted by them and Assessee was not given opportunity to cross examine them and when Addition are based merely on Surmises?
Background To begin with, the unexplained income simply means any income for which assessee do not have valid explanation about the nature and / or source or the assessing officer is not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. Under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) broadly, the term ‘unexplained income’ is […]
In recent times, the most complex question which has been pondered upon is in relation to the implications of Benami Law and Income Tax Act on the issues of share capital, loans, gift, gold/ jewellery, cash, immovable property or any investment/expenditure.
In balance sheet of assessee credit balance of lenders had been shown at Rs. 49 lacs and Rs. 13 lacs and details of accounts along with confirmation, addresses and PAN of lenders were furnished before AO for verification. Even assessee had furnished copy of assessment orders passed in case of lender for the relevant year for verification. Apart from that, funds had been received by assessee through banking channel, and therefore, all the ingredients necessary for proving cash credit under section 68 stood satisfied by assessee. Therefore, AO was not justified in making addition under section 68.
ITAT states that the assessee has disclosed the sale of shares in its books of account. Once the sale is declared as income by the assessee, the question of treating the same amount as a cash credit u/s 68 of the Act results in double addition. Thus, the addition is also bad on merits. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The issue under consideration is whether AO in invoking section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and taxing the share premium under the said provisions?
Satyam Smertex pvt. Ltd. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case on hand, the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, thereafter the onus shifted to AO to disprove the documents furnished by assessee and the documents produced by the assessee cannot be brushed aside by the […]
