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...
Whether AO is correct in considering the gift received by the assessee as unexplained gift and made addition u/s 68 when the Gift was received through banking channels?
Where out of 14 persons, 13 persons have duly confirmed the booking advances made to assessee and their creditworthiness was also examined by AO but no negative inference was drawn by him, no addition could be made under section 68 just because one person who had only advanced an meager amount, had not recorded the statement under oath as he was abroad. Consequently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) would also not be levied.
Assessee is not expected to prove the genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of those creditors because under law the assessee can be asked to prove the source of the credits in its books of account but not the source of the source
ITAT are of the view that u/s. 68 of the Act, it is only the credit entry appearing in the books of account of an assessee for the relevant previous year, that can be treated as unexplained cash credit in the absence of proper explanation by the assessee
Shanti Niketan Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present appeal, the assessee had not only disclosed its donations, but had also submitted a list of donors. The AO proceeded to treat the same as anonymous donations only for the reason that the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were returned un-served and the assessee […]
Mr. Pradeep Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has filed the return of income for assessment year under appeal declaring income of Rs.9,63,920/-, out of which, income was declared at Rs.9 lakhs under section 44AD of the I.T. Act, 1961. In subsequent A.Y. 2016-2017 also, assessee declared income under section 44AD of the I.T. […]
Since assessee had explained that the two partners had cash deposited out of the cash receipts against advanced sale of land in individual however, assessee could not furnish any details evidence of holding of land, agreement with the purchasers and date/mode of source of receipts either before AO or before CIT(A), therefore, AO was correct in holding these credits as unexplained in the hands of assessee.
Gifts are normally made by relatives out of natural love and affection and do not necessarily require any particular occasion. Assessee had discharged his burden by furnishing necessary details before AO. In the absence of anything to show that the transactions were by way of money laundering,
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. That is, section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 does not apply to cases of purchase of share assets and allotment of shares by the appellant when purchase and allotment are under a barter
M/s. Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) The Assessing Officer recorded that there was no reason for high premium of Rs.30 per share being paid by the investors. The assessee company had carried out no business during the entire period, except for collection of share application money. The responding investors […]
