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...
DCIT Vs Aarti Catalyst Solutions P. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) In the present case on hand, the assessee has discharged his onus by providing details relating to the loan amount availed from the three creditors by producing their bank accounts, Income-Tax Returns, confirmation letters, etc. The AO has doubted source of the creditors thereby the AO […]
In peak, the withdrawal of cash, if not utilized elsewhere, is considered as available for making deposits. The highest unexplained cash deposit is considered as peak. The determination of peak reduces the taxable income. However, where withdrawals are through cheques and it is not proved that such withdrawals have come back to the pocket of the assessee, then benefit of those withdrawals will not be available to explain the deposits.
Fortigo Network Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, both the additions, i.e., addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and sec.68 of the Act relate to the share premium amount, i.e., both the additions arise out of common issue only. The assessee has also filed certain additional evidences. We earlier […]
Unsecured loan– It is seen that merely because the Lender Company had substantial funds through borrowings, AO suspected the Assessee to have created layers of intermediaries to bring in Unaccounted money, and on the basis of such suspicion, drew adverse conclusion against the genuineness of the Unsecured Loan and treated it as Unexplained merely on the basis of such suspicion.
It is proposed to amend the provisions of section 68 of the Act so as to provide that the nature and source of any sum, whether in form of loan or borrowing, or any other liability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider. However, this additional onus of proof of satisfactorily explaining the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a well regulated entity, i.e., it is a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company registered with SEBI.
Ram Avtar Bansal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in the aforementioned bank accounts. In his reply, the assessee accepted that the gross receipts of Rs. 60,02,800/- belong to him and simultaneously submitted a revised return on 18/1/2015. The gross receipts were shown as income from […]
PCIT (Central) Vs Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 1. Dismissing a bunch of appeals against deletion of addition u/s 68 towards Share capital/ share premium, bogus purchases and deposit in bank account, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide judgment delivered on 19.01.2022 (yesterday) has held that where the ITAT decided the matter based […]
Arun Duggal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Brief facts of the case are that information has been received from investigation division of the Income Tax department with regard to the two bank accounts maintained by the assessee which have not been disclosed to the Income Tax Department. Based on the information received, the Assessing Officer having […]
Abhinav Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Snapshot of Basic modus of providing bogus LTCG 1. Merger of Unlisted companies with Listed Entity: This is the most preferred option for the persons willing to operate for the purpose of doing Long Term capital Gains. In case of the mergers with listed companies, the merger petition has […]
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 […]
