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...
Treating the receipt of huge share application money by an investor-company as unexplained investment, merely due to the reason that low income was declared by such investor in its income-tax return, was not justified, since balance sheet of the investor produced by assessee had proved creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the investor.
Addition under section 68 of share application money received by assessee on the reason that summons issued under section 131 to the directors of the investment company for verification returned unserved was unjustified as assessee had substantiated share capital received by it by furnishing relevant details and no onus was cast on the assessee during relevant assessment year to produce the persons or the books from investment companies.
M/s. Pratik Syntex Private Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant appeal before us, the inspector was deputed by the AO to make field enquiries who could not locate these three shareholders and the assessee also could not furnish the current addresses of these three new shareholders. These in the instant case before us, […]
The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2005-06 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-18 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-18/T-62/ITO 19(3) (2)/10-11 dated 14/01/2013 qua confirmation of certain addition on account of cash credit u/s 68 for Rs.4 Lacs.
Where assessee having received share capital furnished evidences, i.e. addresses, PAN No., copies of returns and bank statements of subscribers, etc., AO was not justified in treating share application money as unexplained without rebutting such evidences.
ITO Vs M/s. Necleus Steel Private Limited (ITAT Delhi) In this case, assessee received an amount of Rs.67.50 crores from M/s. Unitech Ltd., as advance against the sale of the property. The assessee filed confirmation from M/s. Unitech Ltd., along with its bank statement and acknowledgment of filing of the ITR with balance sheet. The […]
Zion Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The investment in the share of the assessee company by the above five companies whose directors appeared before the Assessing Officer and whose statements were recorded and full details were filed substantiating the identity and creditworthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of […]
DCIT Vs M/s. Karthik Construction Co. (ITAT Mumbai) As could be seen, the Assessing Officer raised suspicion on the loan repayment by doubting the genuineness of the unsecured loan availed by the assessee against which such loan repayment was made. However, as per the facts on record, unsecured loans which were repaid by the assessee […]
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
