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...
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) It is relevant to state that AO in his remand report dated 10.10.2016 did not dispute the veracity of the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and further learned CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences purely on technical ground which is wholly […]
Where AO was of the view that a shareholder of assessee-company had no means to make the subscription of share capital, AO could have asked the source of investment from the shareholder and if the source was not properly explained, addition could have been made in the hands of shareholder as unexplained income but no addition could be made u/s 68 in the hands of assessee-company since it had discharged the initial onus cast upon it by virtue of provisions of section 68.
CIT Vs Maheshchandra G Vakil (Gujarat High Court) HC held that Where assessee proved genuineness of share transactions by contract notes for sale and purchase, bank statement of broker, demat account showing transfer in and out of shares, as also abstract of transactions furnished by stock exchange, Assessing Officer was not justified in treating capital […]
When assessee received advances from customers and the same were subsequently adjusted against goods sold to them, then, the advances could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68, therefore, addition under section 68 made by AO on account of unexplained cash advances was deleted.
Where sale and purchase of shares had taken place only through banking channel at Bombay Stock Exchange and were supported by contract note, income from long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of listed equity shares after payment of STT were rightly claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and AO was precluded in making addition of LTCG as unaccounted income in absence of any supporting evidence.
M/s. SDB Estate Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the assessee, in this case, had filed detailed evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions e.g. copies of form for allotment of shares, confirmation of shareholders and other documents as mentioned above. The department has relied upon the general statement of Shri Mukesh […]
There is nothing on the record to suggest that the assessee had other businesses or that the undisclosed receipts were assessee’s profit out of any other activity other than development of housing project, The Tribunal came to the specific conclusion that the unrecorded consideration was also part of the assessee’s sale transaction of completed residential units and was therefore eligible under Section 80IB [10] of the Act. We do not find any error in such view.
ITO Vs M/s. Mundela Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) With regard to non granting of deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act, treating the unexplained credits as ‘income from other sources’, this issue was considered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd., 79 taxmann.com/379 ITR 330 wherein ‘the income […]
Assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company had jumped to an higher amount in no time when the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise. Also, assessee failed to provide details of persons who purchased the shares. Clearly, assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction, meant to account for undisclsoed income in the garb of long-term capital gain, therefore, such gain had to be assessed as undisclosed credit under section 68.
Addition under section 68 on basis of information received from investigation wing as to assessee having received share application money from alleged entry operator was not justified as assessee had filed sufficient evidences and details to prove identity and creditworthiness of share application and genuineness of transaction of receipt of share application money
