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...
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of gold?
ITO Vs. Aravali Prime Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) In this case, it is noted that the AO during the course of assessment proceeding made the addition of Rs. 2,63,15,000/- (138500 shares x Rs. 190 per share) on account of share premium received on issue of shares by the assessee company. Thus the AO observed […]
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by the AO under section 68 by considering the the amount received as unexplained share capital and premium is justified?
ITO Vs M/s Heckyl Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Firstly, the AO has clearly mentioned at paragraph no. 5 on page no’s, 6 and 7 of his order that he had made two references to the tax authorities in Mauritius and the UK. These references had been made under section 90 of the Act and had […]
Taxation of share premium is a relatively new but litigated area of taxation. This article examines the two alternative approaches the AO should adopt while examining the issue where share premium received is in excess of its fair market value, i.e. the route of Section 68 or Section 56 (2)(viib).
The issue under consideration is whether the addition on account of advances from customers treating the same as unexplained liability (Section 68) is justified in law?
For instance, scribbling or rough notings found on loose papers cannot be straightaway classified as ‘incriminating material’ unless the AO establishes nexus or connect of such notings with unearthing of undisclosed income of the assessee. This nexus or connect has to be brought out in explicit terms with corroborative material or evidence which any prudent man properly instructed in law must be able to understand or correlate so as to justify the AO’s inference of undisclosed income from such seized incriminating material.
Yes, in certain case even if assessee received money through proper banking channels still it may attract tax @ 82.50% if assessee could not explain its source, identity and creditworthiness etc of the lender/giver of the amount to the satisfaction of Assessing Officer
Now-a-days Income Tax department investigates alleged trading/investment in shares and securities with collusion/connivance with any listed companies or with share broker by conducting Search/ Survey or by asking details u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is justified in making addition u/s 68 towards alleged unexplained deposit in the bank account in as much as a bank account is not a book of account maintained by the appellant?
