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...
This Article aims at highlighting the unsung provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards and surfacing some practical concerns surrounding its applicability and further amendments made to this section.
J. J. Development Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court) Section 68 Bogus share capital: The appellant-assessee has referred to a judgment of this Court reported at 114 ITR 689 for the proposition that upon the identity of the person who has put in the money being established by the assessee, the onus is on […]
Pawan Kumar Garg Vs CIT (Punjab and Haryana HC) Conclusion: If the explanation offered by assessee regarding nature and source of sum credited in his books of account was not found satisfactory by AO, the said sum could be charged to income tax under section 68. Held: During assessment proceedings, AO noted that credit liability […]
Moti Adhesives P. ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Mere non production of Director of said share holder company cannot justify adverse inference u/s 68 of the Act. Even if there was any doubt if any regarding the creditworthiness of the share applicants was still subsisting, then AO should have made enquiries from the AO of […]
ACIT Vs Ravnet Solutions (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Where assessee, in receipt of share capital, had established onus cast on it to explain identity and creditworthiness of subscribers and genuineness of impugned share transactions by filing evidences such as copies of confirmations, ITRs, PANs and bank statements, etc. AO was not justified in making addition […]
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus share capital and exorbitant premium was not justified as where the funds had been received through banking channel and there was no dispute about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors.
Addition under section 68 on account of share application money received from non-resident was not justified as money brought into India by non-residents for investment or other purposes was not liable to Indian Income Tax.
AO has remained sited with folded hands and has not made any independent enquiry from concerned AO of share holder company which itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made. On basis of this I have no hesitation to delete the additions of Rs 25,00,000 and Rs 45,000 made u/s 68
ITO Vs. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon’ble […]
Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P.) Ltd Vs ITO (Kerala High Court) (DB) Any premium received by a Company on sale of shares, in excess of its face value; if the Company is not one in which the public has substantial interest, would be treated as income from other sources, as seen from Section […]
