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...
Addition made under section 68 on account of share capital received by assessee as unexplained credit was to be deleted in absence of any material or inquiry conducted by AO that the issuing companies were non-existing entities or a paper company and AO had not brought material on record to dislodge the veracity of the evidences filed by assessee.
Where assessee had furnished relevant evidences such as copies of bank statement, demat account, share purchase documents and share certificate., etc., to prove its bogus long-term capital gain on sale of shares and no adverse material had been brought on record by AO to disprove the claim of assessee, addition made under section 68 on account of unexplained credit could not be sustained.
Addition under section 68 made by AO of the entire share capital and premium received during the year on the basis of negative observation about availability of funds with share applicant was unjustified as the share applicant was the sister concern of assessee, from whom similar share application with premium were received in the earlier year and the balance sheet of the share applicant showed ample source of funds.
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the decision of CIT(A) for deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act?
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus capital gains from penny stocks was not justified as AO had not conducted any independent and separate enquiry to prove that the transactions carried out by the assessee were not genuine or that the documents were not authentic and assessee had successfully discharged the onus cast upon him by provisions of section 68.
Where assessee had duly substantiated that it had earned a profit from commodities transactions along with complete details supporting the same, AO was not justified in treating the commodity transactions a fictitious arrangement with its associate concerns and adding the income as an unexplained cash credit under Sec.68.
Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Indore) Admittedly the appellant has received the amount in question and the amount is duly deposited in the bank account of the appellant and the appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the said deposits in his bank account and hence the investment in the […]
PCIT Vs Ajay Jaysukhlal Mehta (Gujarat High Court) In a situation in which assessee and it’s proprietorship concern are maintaining separate books of accounts – as in the present case, an assessee may have his own capital of ‘x’ amount, and yet his capital contribution in capital account of a proprietorship concern can be more […]
Pr. CIT Vs Adamine Construction (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The material on record in the form of the orders of the lower appellate authorities disclosed that both the assessee and later the share applicants (upon receiving notice under Section 131 of the Act) had produced documentary proof. These included the assessments and income-tax returns […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court ) Supreme Court in this Case upheld the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Income Tax Department. High Court held that AO did not dispute the veracity of the documents produced. Furthermore, the two individuals who […]
