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...
In these cases there are 18 different assessees who filed appeal before ITAT aggrieved from the order u/s 263 passed by CITs. In original proceedings AO passed orders with nominal additions after investigation by way of summoning various subscribers to share capital of assessee companies.
In the present case there were the three issues which were decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal where it was held that whenever the transactions have been made through proper banking channel, then invocation of section 68 will not be valid.
Whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance Instead, the issue was whether the amount invested by the share applicants were from legitimate sources.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High court held that the proceedings of re-assessment could be made if full and true facts have not been disclosed earlier. Also, it was held that section 68 could be invoked if the genuineness of parties are not proved.
Once assessee has submitted documents related to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction the onus of proving share application as bogus shifts on the revenue. If revenue fails to prove further then assessee connote be treated as bogus.
In the case of ITO Vs. Sh. Mahender Singh, ITAT Delhi has held that addition cannot be made for Cash deposits in the bank account received against sale of land as undisclosed investment for mere failure of Assessee to Produce
A.O. was not convinced by the explanation furnished by the assessee with regard to share capital received from six applicants and a sum of Rs.24 lacs was added u/s 68 of the Act. Appeal filed with CIT was rejected on the ground of assessee inability to explain the identity
In the present instance, the AO apparently had the books and all the relevant information pertaining to the share applicants. CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 2008 (216) CTR (SC) 195 directs that whilst the initial onus to prove the identity of a third party,
Assessee relied upon the assessment order of AY 2008-09 before CIT (A) in which the accounting to assessee was accepted by revenue. CIT (A) took cognizance of that order pertaining to AY 2008-09 and quantified net profit of assessee retail business @ 5%. ITAT also confirmed the order of CIT (A).
While Section 68 certainly enables the AO to bring to tax amounts which are suspect, in a transaction of the present kind, where the identity and the relationship of the donor are known, the AO in our opinion ought not to have concluded that the transaction – by which the assessee received the amount of Rs. 1,84,860/- was ingenuine.
