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 entire disallowance in this case is based on third party information gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department, which have not been independently subjected to further verification by the AO who has not provided the copy of such statements to the appellant, thus denying opportunity of cross examination to the appellant, who has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return.
ITO Vs M/s Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) As two of the share applicant companies as per the information received by the A.O from the office of the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, were the companies controlled an infamous accommodation entry provider, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the lower authorities to have carried out […]
Where assessee had explained source of the cash deposit in the bank account by producing copies of the bills of sale of agricultural produce, which supported the explanation of assessee that assessee had received cash out of sale of agriculture produce, no addition under section 68 was warranted.
Since the unaccounted money as alleged by the AO was the loan, which was repaid subsequently by assessee, addition made on account of unverifiable unsecured loans was unjustified.
A perusal of financial statement, bank statements and income tax returns of share applicants companies clearly revealed that they had no regular means to invest in the share capital of the assessee company and, therefore, AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on the ground of lack of creditworthiness and genuineness.
Addition on account of undisclosed stock/ production is not justified where no physical discrepancy was found/detected by the survey team and excess value of stock was merely because of difference in valuation of closing stock
ITAT states that, once the source of deposit is explained as prior withdrawal from the bank of more than the amount deposited subsequently then the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted.
Where corpus donation could not be verified as donor was not co-operating in providing details, it was rightly treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68.
Mr. Satyender Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is not in dispute that assessee is owner of the Car. The assessee explained that car is sold for cash of Rs.3,21,900/- to Shri Parvender Singh who has executed an affidavit in favour of the assessee, confirming the purchase of the Car. The A.O. did not examine […]
Suman Poddar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The evidences put forth by the Revenue regarding the entry operation fairly leads to a conclusion that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entry receipts in the form of long-term capital gains. The assessee has failed to prove that the share transactions are genuine and […]
