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 assessee, a company stated to be engaged in Real Estate business, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 declaring loss of (-) Rs.6,84,051. The assessee filed a revised return on 14.10.2008 declaring loss of (-) Rs.5,23,751. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act
When on receipt of money by way of cheque a liability is acknowledged by receiver as loan or deposit or share capital, it need to be viewed considering ground realities faced by receiver of money against which he incur liability.
Sub-section (2) of said section provides that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set-off of any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1).
Initial burden was on assessee to show that transactions in loose sheet were not in the nature of undisclosed investments. As assessee failed to discharge the same, AO was justified in making addition under section 69.
In the case of The Income-tax Officer vs M/s. Shree Kastbhanjan Dev Developers, the Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) proclaimed in its recent order that firm cannot be assessed for unexplained cash credits in respect of capital introduction by its partner.
Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether there is credit of a sum during the year in the books of accounts maintained by the taxpayer. Step 2: If yes, the assessee should be asked to explain the nature and source of such credit appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee.
Mayuri Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT pune) Mere furnishing of confirmations and PAN are not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors. The assessee has to prove financial capacity of the creditors. The assessee was required to furnish evidence that would show financial worth of the creditors, such as bank statements, to remove […]
By this income tax appeal, the appellant assessee challenges the orders of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the assessee had traded in shares and the income was liable to be taxed as business income.
Shri Nilesh Janardan Thakur Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The AOs case is that the assessee has received money without any consideration which is taxable under the provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The AO has brought out number of reasons to come to the conclusion that money is taxable u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. […]
If AO was not satisfied regarding transaction relating to the cash deposited by partner whose identity was not in doubt and assessee had furnished all the relevant documents, then addition could have been made in the hands of said partner and not in the hands of the assessee.
