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...
Since neither AO conducted any enquiry nor had brought any clinching evidences to disprove the evidences produced by assessee and assessee had furnished all details including bank statement, share brokers note, ledger account copies, share certificates, in support of purchase and sale of shares and mode of payment and receipts of proceeds thus, no addition could be made under section 68 as AO had merely relied on investigation wing report without disputing vortex of evidences furnished by assessee.
Addition under section 68 for not proving the source of income of partners who have made the deposit with the firm in their capital account could not be made as partners had shown the agricultural income in their personal returns of the past years which had been accepted by the department as such and the partners were all identifiable and separately assessed to tax thus, the source of investment having been explained and therefore, the addition could not have to be considered in the hands of the partners and not in the hands of the firm.
Is addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act justified in case of Cash Sale duly credited in P & L Account and offered for taxation? During the Demonetization period (i.e. 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016), there has been a huge deposition of cash in old demonetized currency (or SBN) notes in various Bank Account. It was […]
Harina Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is that whether the loan received from two directors can be considered as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act? In the given case, the assessee has received amount from two of its directors. The assessee could file only ledger account extract […]
This article deals with the theory of telescoping as applied in the Income-tax Law, the manner of its application and as to how and under what circumstances the benefit of telescoping could be claimed / availed by an assessee. Though the said theory has general applicability across the taxability of a wide range of items, […]
Whether Provisions of Section 68 are applicable in case of sales receipt shown in trading and profit and loss account? It has been observed that while passing an order for scrutiny assessment for cash deposited by the assessee during demonetization period, various assessing officers have made addition under various sections of the Income Tax Act, […]
There may be some cases under Income Tax Assessment proceedings where there are a large number of unexplained credit and debit enteries of a person standing in books of account of an assessee. In such case the AO may tend to add all the aggregate enteries as unexplained income. However, in such case if the assessee does not have any explanation for every credit or debit entry of a person, standing in his books of account then one of the most commonest defences which an assessee may take is that, the enteries should be so arranged in serial order, that a credit following a debit entry should be treated as referable to the latter to the extent possible and that, not the aggregate but only the ‘peak’ of the credits should be treated as unexplained.
Modern Malleables Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Addition made u/s. 68 only on the basis of two statements which could not stand the scrutiny of law, was not justified and therefore, the addition could not be sustained as per law. Held: AO got information from the Investigation Wing pursuant to search operation conducted at […]
Section 68 had no application when the shares were allotted by the assessee-company under a barter system as the respective parties did not receive cash nor did pay any cash, there was no real credit of cash in the cash book and the question of inclusion of the amount of the entry as unexplained cash credit could not arise.
The assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. The fact that the source of the source is suspect and that the creditor had no regular source of income to justify the advancement of the credit to the assessee does not mean that an addition can be made in the hands of the assessee
