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...
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.22,52,471/-. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading/ Distribution of ITC Products under the name and style of M/s. DK Enterprises. On verification of the P & L A/c, audited report and books of account of the assessee, it was noticed that assessee had made huge payments to M/s. Hanuman Traders in cash.
Kailash A. Kothari Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Learned departmental representative submitted that it is abundantly clear that the said donor has no capacity to give the said gift. He submitted that in absence of the cogency of the capacity, mere declaration of gift cannot be accepted as sufficient. He further submitted that the bank statement […]
Assessee cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the six companies as discussed above failed to reply to the notices issued to them under section 133(6) of the Act.
CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition wrongly made under section 153A of the Act, without there being any adverse material on record against the assessee; that since the assessee had no business income, no books of account were maintained and the addition was made only on the basis of the assessee’s pass book, which is not a book of account; that as such, the addition made under section 68 of the Act is not sustainable.
Assessing officer treated the receipts as unexplained cash credit for the reason that M/s. National Multi Commodity Exchange of India had confirmed that M/s. Vatika Merchants (supra) was expelled from the exchange long prior to the transactions in question.
Where assessee had failed in establishing the creditworthiness of the donors, occasion for making the gifts and why the donors who were strangers and not men of means gifted such huge amounts to the assessee- HUF out of love and affection, therefore, addition made by AO was justified.
Commissioner (Appeals) therefore, rightly noted that there is no law that more than one Company cannot have its Registered Office at one address. The Companies could have change their address later on.
CIT (Central) Vs. M/S Russian Technology Center (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The preceding enumeration of the circumstances of the case show that the assessee had furnished all relevant data before the AO and the CIT(A), which, however, were not inquired into by the AO. Instead he obdurately adhered to his first impression and/or initial […]
Pendurthi Chandrasekhar Vs DCIT (Andhra Pradesh HC) Conclusion: AO was not justified in adding the amount of Rs. 73,00,000 to the account of assessee received from maternal aunt as the donor herself had given a confirmation letter clearly stating therein that she had transferred the amount and further declaring that she gave the said gift […]
Share application money cannot be treated as unexplained credit if the AO does not make any investigation on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee or ask for the production of the investors for examination u/s 131 or if adverse material is found during search to prove that share application money is bogus or an arranged affair of the assessee
