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...
Ms. Nikunj Malik Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is well settled law that contents of the registered document cannot be disputed through oral evidence. On the face of the registered sale deed, it is established that assessee made an investment in cash in purchase of property for a sum of Rs.42 lakhs and other amount […]
Income-tax Authorities have correctly held that the assessee was not in receipt of Rs. 12,36,000 as agricultural income. Having held Rs. 12,36,000 as not agricultural income, the sum that is credited to the book of account has to be necessarily added as income from other sources u/s 68 of the I.T.Act.
ACIT Vs Goldmohur Design And Apparel Park Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Bombay High Court in CIT vs Gangadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (394 ITR 680)(Bom.) held in this context to the pre-amended section 68 has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is […]
Pee Aar Securities Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee before us is a private limited company which is, by law, prohibited from offering its securities for subscription by general public. It cannot, therefore, be really open to the assessee to say that we have no clue about who the subscribers to the share capital […]
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. Moreover, in the balance sheet of the assessee company in the schedule to share capital, it is very clearly mentioned by way of note that the fresh share capital was raised during the year for consideration other than cash. Hence ITAT hold that provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case
M/s. Janatha Trading Corporation Vs DCIT (ITAT Cochin) The contention of the AR is that the assessee has produced the confirmations from the partners and that being found insufficient by the AO, the AO ought to have called for more details. In other words, it was the contention of the Ld. AR that on production of […]
Madras HC: Share allotment against pre-existing liability isn’t unexplained cash credit u/s 68, especially when no cash is involved.
Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In this case ITAT explains Law on whether share capital/ share premium received by a Company from investors can be assessed as ‘unexplained cash credit’ in the light of judgements of the Courts and Tribunal. In the case in hand Considering the facts of the case, in […]
Tribunal, on examination of facts, has come to the conclusion that the investment made by the shareholders is not hit by Section 68 of the Act. It records, that the entire basis of the Revenue’s case is based on surmise that the respondent was taking bogus purchase bills and cash was introduced in the form of share capital without any evidence in support. Therefore, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal on facts is a possible.
Income from undisclosed sources–Addition under section 68–No documentary evidences- As assessee failed to substantiate gift transaction with supportive evidences, AO was justified in making addition under section 68.
