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...
Shri Srinivasa Reddy Yenumula Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) As regards the addition of Rs.18.00 lakhs towards unexplained investment is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engg. & Construction Co. reported in (1972) 83 ITR 0187 wherein […]
Addition made under section 68 consequent to notice issued under section 153C was deleted because the AO had initiated assessment proceedings under section 153C for the relevant assessment years without pointing out or referring to any seized document belonging to those years and, therefore, there was no prima facierationale or logic behind issuing the said notice.
DCIT Vs Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We have considered the issue and find that this section does not cover section 68 of the Act. Thus, the Legislature does not envisage any sort of valuation for the purpose of section 68 of the Act. Indeed, valuation of preference shares is a completely different exercise […]
Bogus Capital gains- Order is against the principle of natural justice in as much as the order has been passed taking the statement of person as base, the copy of which is not made available to the assessee. Further, opportunity to cross examine the concerned person was also not provided to the assessee.
Transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts, statutory returns are duly filed with regard to allotment of shares. Documentary evidence proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is provided. Addition under section 68 not possible.
CIT(A) has in his order relied upon circumstantial evidence and human probabilities to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called rules of suspicious transaction
Mahavir Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and […]
Since all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was satisfied by assessee and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him, therefore, without doing so, the addition made by AO based on conjectures and surmises could not be justified.
CIT Vs M/s. Sree Ganesh Trading Company (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: AO was not justified in making addition to the income of assessee under section 68 on account of alleged unexplained credits as assessee-firm had proved identity, creditworthiness of the creditors from whom it had received credits and if AO had doubt on the source […]
As assessee had duly proved source of cash deposit in her bank account to be opening cash balance and gift from her parents, no addition could be made under section 68.
