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...
Income-tax Authorities have correctly held that the assessee was not in receipt of Rs. 12,36,000 as agricultural income. Having held Rs. 12,36,000 as not agricultural income, the sum that is credited to the book of account has to be necessarily added as income from other sources u/s 68 of the I.T.Act.
ACIT Vs Goldmohur Design And Apparel Park Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Bombay High Court in CIT vs Gangadeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (394 ITR 680)(Bom.) held in this context to the pre-amended section 68 has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is […]
Pee Aar Securities Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee before us is a private limited company which is, by law, prohibited from offering its securities for subscription by general public. It cannot, therefore, be really open to the assessee to say that we have no clue about who the subscribers to the share capital […]
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. Moreover, in the balance sheet of the assessee company in the schedule to share capital, it is very clearly mentioned by way of note that the fresh share capital was raised during the year for consideration other than cash. Hence ITAT hold that provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case
M/s. Janatha Trading Corporation Vs DCIT (ITAT Cochin) The contention of the AR is that the assessee has produced the confirmations from the partners and that being found insufficient by the AO, the AO ought to have called for more details. In other words, it was the contention of the Ld. AR that on production of […]
Madras HC: Share allotment against pre-existing liability isn’t unexplained cash credit u/s 68, especially when no cash is involved.
Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In this case ITAT explains Law on whether share capital/ share premium received by a Company from investors can be assessed as ‘unexplained cash credit’ in the light of judgements of the Courts and Tribunal. In the case in hand Considering the facts of the case, in […]
Tribunal, on examination of facts, has come to the conclusion that the investment made by the shareholders is not hit by Section 68 of the Act. It records, that the entire basis of the Revenue’s case is based on surmise that the respondent was taking bogus purchase bills and cash was introduced in the form of share capital without any evidence in support. Therefore, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal on facts is a possible.
Income from undisclosed sources–Addition under section 68–No documentary evidences- As assessee failed to substantiate gift transaction with supportive evidences, AO was justified in making addition under section 68.
Shri Vicky Jethani Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) We note that the assessee has claimed the gift of Rs. 8,00,000/- received from Smt. Poonaj Kanjani stated to be the Aunt of the assessee and non-resident Indian based at UAE. In support of the claim, the assessee has furnished the Bank Certificate of Bank of Baroda regarding […]
