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 : 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 : The Tribunal held that the entire unaccounted turnover from alleged on-money receipts cannot be treated as taxable income. It rule...
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...
In order to curb the practice of laundering of unaccounted money by taking advantage of basic exemption limit, it is proposed to tax the unexplained credits, money, investment, expenditure, etc., which has been deemed as income under section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess as applicable). It is also proposed to provide that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing deemed income under the said sections.
It is, proposed to amend section 68 of the Act to provide that the nature and source of any sum credited, as share capital, share premium etc., in the books of a closely held company shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained by the assessee company in the hands of the resident shareholder. However, even in the case of closely held companies, it is proposed that this additional onus of satisfactorily explaining the source in the hands of the shareholder, would not apply if the shareholder is a well regulated entity, i.e. a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company registered with the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
It is not in dispute that there were cash deposits of the equivalent amounts in the bank accounts of the creditors just before advancing loan to the assessee or on the date of issuing cheques to the assessee. In the case of the creditor, ‘RS’, his bank statement is filed in which Rs. 2,50,000 has been deposited, but neither it is mentioned that it was cash nor it is mentioned how the amount similar to the credit was credited in his bank account.
The issue for consideration before is whether the gift received by the assessee is genuine or not? As per the AO, gift of such a substantial amount was not justified to a nonrelative/ no blood relation and the creditworthiness of the donor is not adequate. The CIT(A) held that, in fact, the Assessing Officer has in his remand report clearly stated that “The donor has confirmed in his statement the fact of giving gift to the appellant during the year under consideration.
Indisputably, the documents placed at sl. no. 3 on page no.15-20 of the paper book viz. affidavit of Ms. Anjana Vohra, her confirmation and PAN details were never considered by the AO, having been submitted before the AO after the conclusion of hearing on 23.12.2009. There is no sl. no.4 in the paper book; admittedly sl. nos. in the paper book having been wrongly numbered. Though the ld. CIT(A) referred to the relevant submissions of the assessee in the impugned order and these documents are stated to have been placed before him, he did not record his specific findings in the light of these documents and merely affirmed the order of the AO.
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports [216 CTR 195] wherein their Lordships observed Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Sec. 68 of I.T. Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their Individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment
ITO Vs. Nasir Khan J. Mahadik (ITAT Mumbai)-Mumbai ITAT has in the following case deleted the additions made on account of opening balances of unsecured loans and the notional interest on such loans. The Tribunal held that only fresh loans or additions to the loans during the year in question can be considered for the purpose of addition. Previous years loans cannot be added to subsequent year’s income by claiming them to be unexplained.
DCIT Vs. Divine International (ITAT Delhi) – The CIT(A) has denied the deduction in respect of the addition on account of the so called sundry creditors on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 80 HHC, it is only the income derived by the assessee from the export of such merchandise which is eligible and the addition on account of creditors cannot be considered as income derived from the exports.
DCIT Vs. Bihariji Ispat Udyog Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- From the record it appears that all the aforesaid transactions were by Account Payee cheques and loan confirmation and also the confirmation for payment of Share Application Money were obtained from the said Ankur Marketing Ltd. with its I.T. File No. and the same were filed with the A.O. For the Share Application Money received by the assessee, shares were allotted immediately after close of the accounting year 2000-01.
S K Bothra & Sons, HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) – When the assessee has discharged the initial burden to prove the loan transaction, the addition made by the AO based on the report of the Inspector without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the alleged information, is not correct.- In our view, equity and justice demand that the full text of the information given by the Inspector to the Assessing Officer which is the basis of the conclusion of the assessment should be made known to the assessee before the same is used against him so that the genuineness of the said information can be rebutted by the appellant-assessee or at least, the assessee can get an opportunity to explain the said information.
