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 : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits arising from recorded and accepted cash sales cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that cash deposits during the demonetization period could not be treated as unexplained where the assessee's ...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits sourced from recorded cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained credits once the sales an...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of a Section 68 addition after finding that the lenders identity, creditworthiness and the ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal relied on earlier findings that the lending entities were paper concerns engaged in providing accommodation entries. ...
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...
Peak credit theory will be applicable only when there are deposits in cash and withdrawals in cash. In the instant case when the deposits are made in cash and most of the withdrawals are by way of clearing and not cash withdrawn, therefore, the theory of peak credit is not fully applicable to the facts of this case.
Respective court was of the view that section 68 has no application because the same had already been taken in income of the assessee so it no where remains undisclosed. Moreover the assessee has duly discharged its onus to prove the credit worthiness of the donor by giving the list of the same
Assesse submitted, the additions made as cash credits being in nature of trade credits on account of purchase of sunflower seeds, thus, are not in the nature of cash credits as envisaged under section 68 and the same therefore cannot be added to the income of the assessee by invoking the said provision.
In the case of Xerces Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, ITAT Pune held that assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough.
Where assessee surrendered unexplained income voluntarily even after receiving notice u/s 143(2) and the AO had not brought any evidence on record to prove that there was concealment of income, whether levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified.
Assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act are not a game of hide and seek. The inquiry in the wake of a notice under Section 148 is not an empty formality. It must be effective and with a sense of purpose.
Assessee had declared an income by filing its return. The said return was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the basis of AIR. Assessment u/s 144 was made, resulting in an addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- as the assessee was found to have failed to explain the source of investment.
In the assessment order passed u/s.144 the income was at Rs.12,96,457/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,20,000/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO found that there was a cash deposit of Rs.11,76,457/- in the bank account of the assessee maintained with ICICI Bank.
The only issue here is the addition of Rs.60 lacs made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained credit on account of the share application money. On going through the facts of the case, we notice that assessee has filed the relevant details which it could have filed in support of its contention
Share Application Money or deposit in the current account cannot be included in the definition of deposit so as to trigger provisions of sec 269SS of the Income Tax Act,1961. Brief facts of the case were that the assessee company was in the business of construct ion of the hotel.
