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...
No addition could have been made u/s 68 of the Act in view of the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search to which this impugned addition could be related.
AO was justified in making addition under section 68 of credit balance showing in assessees books of accounts against the Nil balance shown by the creditors in their books of accounts as on verification of the books of accounts of the creditor it was found that there was no balance outstanding against assessee and the same indicated that the credit balance shown in the books of the assessee was bogus.
Merely because assessee company had filed all primary evidence, it could not be said that onus on assessee to establish credit worthiness of investor companies stood discharged u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Recent Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd.- After this judgement, the authorities would get right to question the integrity of every issue or reissue of share capital, especially those by company in which public are not substantially interested because these companies generally issue shares on private placement basis.
Assessee company failed to prove genuineness of investor – provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act attracted – Supreme Court The Apex court in the case of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd (SLP 29855 of 2018) held that the assessee company is under a legal obligation to prove the source of receipt of […]
Recently two judges’ bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 1 (SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018), by its judgment dated 5th March, 2019 restored the order of Assessing Officer by confirming the addition to the taxable income made under Section 68 […]
Addition under section 68 of short term capital loss on sale of shares alleged as bogus on the basis of investigation wing report was not justified as the transaction of purchase and sale of shares were supported and evidenced by Bills, Contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements, ledger accounts of brokers and payment of STT, etc., and the transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by AO in earlier years.
Principal CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) Hon’ble SC held practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the cloak of share capital/premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a higher onus is required to be placed on […]
In the matter f Issue of Share at High Premium AO should not resort to rely on circumstantial evidence or on test of human probabilities but on factual evidence of passing of benefit to the shareholders/directors. Hence ITAT remanded the matter back to AO to re-assess whether the assessee was used as a vehicle to pass on the benefit to the shareholder / director.
Addition under section 68 on mere reason of non-production of directors in the person of shareholder companies was not justified and AO had not brought any cogent material on records in assessment order to demolish the copious evidences furnished by assessee.
