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...
PCIT Vs M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (Bombay High Court) In the present case, as noted above, the assessee was a trader of fabrics. The A.O. found three entities who were indulging in bogus billing activities. A.O. found that the purchases made by the assessee from these entities were bogus. This being a finding […]
Since transaction between assessee and truck owners was a liability which assessee had to pay arising from trade transaction and same could not be added under section 68.
This is a simple case of acquiring shares of certain companies from certain shareholders without paying any cash consideration and instead the consideration was settled through issuance of shares to the respective parties. Hence, we hold that provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and accordingly the entire addition deserves to be deleted,
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus shre capital was unjustified as the identity and creditworthiness of share subscribers and genuineness of receipt of share capital stood established and non-production of directors of subscriber companies could not be a sole ground to make addition.
PCIT Vs Chain House International (P) Ltd (Supreme Court of India) In this case Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Madhya Pradesh High Court held that The question raised by the revenue in regard to issuing the share at a premium is purely a question of fact. It is a prerogative […]
Merely because the investment was considerably large and as noted, several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through P5AHIML would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device.
Since assessee had explained both the nature & source of share capital received with premium and also submitted PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, therefore, addition under section 68 was unjustified.
ITO Vs M/s Yadu Steels & Power Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to […]
ITO Vs M/s Megasun Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Since assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by filing sufficient evidences and accordingly, the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him and as AO failed to do so, addition of share […]
In present case there are evidences and material to show that the shareholder company was only a paper company having no source of income, but had made substantial and huge investment in the form of share application money.
