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...
Since transaction between assessee and truck owners was a liability which assessee had to pay arising from trade transaction and same could not be added under section 68.
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. Hence, we hold that provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and accordingly the entire addition deserves to be deleted,
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus shre capital was unjustified as the identity and creditworthiness of share subscribers and genuineness of receipt of share capital stood established and non-production of directors of subscriber companies could not be a sole ground to make addition.
PCIT Vs Chain House International (P) Ltd (Supreme Court of India) In this case Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Madhya Pradesh High Court held that The question raised by the revenue in regard to issuing the share at a premium is purely a question of fact. It is a prerogative […]
Merely because the investment was considerably large and as noted, several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through P5AHIML would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device.
Since assessee had explained both the nature & source of share capital received with premium and also submitted PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, therefore, addition under section 68 was unjustified.
ITO Vs M/s Yadu Steels & Power Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to […]
ITO Vs M/s Megasun Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Since assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by filing sufficient evidences and accordingly, the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him and as AO failed to do so, addition of share […]
In present case there are evidences and material to show that the shareholder company was only a paper company having no source of income, but had made substantial and huge investment in the form of share application money.
No addition could have been made u/s 68 of the Act in view of the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search to which this impugned addition could be related.
