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...
Addition under section 68 of share application money received by assessee on the reason that summons issued under section 131 to the directors of the investment company for verification returned unserved was unjustified as assessee had substantiated share capital received by it by furnishing relevant details and no onus was cast on the assessee during relevant assessment year to produce the persons or the books from investment companies.
M/s. Pratik Syntex Private Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant appeal before us, the inspector was deputed by the AO to make field enquiries who could not locate these three shareholders and the assessee also could not furnish the current addresses of these three new shareholders. These in the instant case before us, […]
The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2005-06 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-18 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-18/T-62/ITO 19(3) (2)/10-11 dated 14/01/2013 qua confirmation of certain addition on account of cash credit u/s 68 for Rs.4 Lacs.
Where assessee having received share capital furnished evidences, i.e. addresses, PAN No., copies of returns and bank statements of subscribers, etc., AO was not justified in treating share application money as unexplained without rebutting such evidences.
ITO Vs M/s. Necleus Steel Private Limited (ITAT Delhi) In this case, assessee received an amount of Rs.67.50 crores from M/s. Unitech Ltd., as advance against the sale of the property. The assessee filed confirmation from M/s. Unitech Ltd., along with its bank statement and acknowledgment of filing of the ITR with balance sheet. The […]
Zion Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The investment in the share of the assessee company by the above five companies whose directors appeared before the Assessing Officer and whose statements were recorded and full details were filed substantiating the identity and creditworthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of […]
DCIT Vs M/s. Karthik Construction Co. (ITAT Mumbai) As could be seen, the Assessing Officer raised suspicion on the loan repayment by doubting the genuineness of the unsecured loan availed by the assessee against which such loan repayment was made. However, as per the facts on record, unsecured loans which were repaid by the assessee […]
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee who derives income from house property and income from other sources, filed her return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 27/07/2010 declaring an income of Rs. 17,75,810/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dated 25/08/2011 was issued and served on the assessee on 06/09/2011. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the information called for.
