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...
Kailash A. Kothari Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Learned departmental representative submitted that it is abundantly clear that the said donor has no capacity to give the said gift. He submitted that in absence of the cogency of the capacity, mere declaration of gift cannot be accepted as sufficient. He further submitted that the bank statement […]
Assessee cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the six companies as discussed above failed to reply to the notices issued to them under section 133(6) of the Act.
CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition wrongly made under section 153A of the Act, without there being any adverse material on record against the assessee; that since the assessee had no business income, no books of account were maintained and the addition was made only on the basis of the assessee’s pass book, which is not a book of account; that as such, the addition made under section 68 of the Act is not sustainable.
Assessing officer treated the receipts as unexplained cash credit for the reason that M/s. National Multi Commodity Exchange of India had confirmed that M/s. Vatika Merchants (supra) was expelled from the exchange long prior to the transactions in question.
Where assessee had failed in establishing the creditworthiness of the donors, occasion for making the gifts and why the donors who were strangers and not men of means gifted such huge amounts to the assessee- HUF out of love and affection, therefore, addition made by AO was justified.
Commissioner (Appeals) therefore, rightly noted that there is no law that more than one Company cannot have its Registered Office at one address. The Companies could have change their address later on.
CIT (Central) Vs. M/S Russian Technology Center (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The preceding enumeration of the circumstances of the case show that the assessee had furnished all relevant data before the AO and the CIT(A), which, however, were not inquired into by the AO. Instead he obdurately adhered to his first impression and/or initial […]
Pendurthi Chandrasekhar Vs DCIT (Andhra Pradesh HC) Conclusion: AO was not justified in adding the amount of Rs. 73,00,000 to the account of assessee received from maternal aunt as the donor herself had given a confirmation letter clearly stating therein that she had transferred the amount and further declaring that she gave the said gift […]
Share application money cannot be treated as unexplained credit if the AO does not make any investigation on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee or ask for the production of the investors for examination u/s 131 or if adverse material is found during search to prove that share application money is bogus or an arranged affair of the assessee
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
