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...
Usekiwi Infolabs Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The facts clearly shows that assessee has got an investment from Kstart LLC, Mauritius as a contribution towards issue of 20,000 compulsorily convertible preference shares having face value of ₹ 10 each at a premium of ₹ 827.50 per share. For this proposition the bank account of […]
Shares at premium were issued by assessee-company to other companies in lieu of shares held by those companies and since no cash was involved in these transactions and transactions were entered into in books of assessee-company by way of journal entries, AO was not, therefore, justified in making addition under section 68.
Nirja Khatuwala Vs ITO (ITAT Gauhati) I note that the out of total outstanding credits of Rs. 2,23,89,337/-[total number of sundry creditors were eleven (11)], the Assessing Officer was not satisfied about the genuinity in respect of credit worth Rs. 34,35,509/- i.e. only in respect of three sundry creditors which comes to 16% of total […]
Network Synthetics Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is observed that the assessee has discharged its initial onus to prove the identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties by filing all these documents. The Tribunal in assessee’s group cases while deleting the additions made u/s. 68 of the Act observed as […]
Ritin Lakhmani Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case The ld. Pr. CIT has simply cut and pasted para 5 to para 5.12.3 and also para 6 from the orders he had passed u/s 263 of the Act from the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act in the case of […]
Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The issue under consideration is whether addition made u/s 68 on the ground that the share capital received is seen not a genuine credit is justified in law? ITAT states that section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition as made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of gifts u/s 68? Addition u/s 68 Justified for Unexplained Gifts Received from Non Related Donor.
AO was duty bound to provide opportunity of cross-examination of witness, if he relied on statement of such witness to decide against assessee, particularly when it was demanded by assessee. Illegality crept in, the moment request for cross-examination was denied.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made u/s 68 for assessee helped various beneficiaries in providing accommodation entries in relation to capital and expenses is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) made by AO forming an opinion that interest bearing funds were withdrawn from the firm being capital withdrawn by the partners and interest free advances is justified in law?
