Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
Income Tax : Explore sections 68 to 69D of Income Tax Act 1961, covering unexplained cash credits, investments, and more. Learn about legal pro...
Income Tax : Explore Section 68 of the Income Tax Act with our comprehensive guide on cash credits. Learn about its purpose, scope, and legal f...
Income Tax : Discover simplified taxation scheme under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act. Learn eligibility criteria, exemptions, and key insights...
Income Tax : Unlock the intricacies of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, unraveling the nuances of unexplained cash credits. Delve into its ame...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITO Vs Neetaben Snehalkumar Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) where Section 254(2) was scrutinized for rectific...
Income Tax : Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) If the explanation based on accounts supported by affidavit is not controverted, no addit...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes Income Tax reassessment notice against Deepak Natvarlal Pankhiyani HUF, citing lack of fresh evidence s...
Income Tax : Explore the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order where Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. successfully challenges a ₹3 Cr addit...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Kolkata order in Keshav Shroff Vs ITO (AY 2016-17). Analysis shows why mere suspicion isn't enough ...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
Held that the re-assessment and addition of the duly accounted cash sales of the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 by the AO without rejection of the books of account of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act is unjustified
Held that assessee failed to explain identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 sustained.
Vishwanath Ramchandra Panvelkar Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We notice that the AO has expressed doubt only on the MOU entered by the assessee with M/s Samarth Enterprises, since it was not registered. However, the AO is placing reliance on the very same MOU to express the view that the assessee should have forfeited the advance […]
Mukesh Bhoormal Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer observed that the scrip in which assessee traded was proved to be insignificant, bogus, without business fundamentals and required the assessee to prove the genuineness of the same. In reply assessee vide letter dated 11.12.2017 submitted that the long term capital gain generated was genuine stating […]
Sneh Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) As per the AO, the assessee has not filed return of income and hence notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued owing to cash transactions exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-. The AO held that the assessee has not given any details with regard to the […]
DCIT Vs Shree Swaminarayan Infrastructure Private Limited (ITAT Rajkot) In this case, assessee company has issued shares of Rs.2,92,00,000/-being 7300 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.3990/- per share and thus there is increase in share capital of Rs.73,000/-. Over and above that the company has collected premium of Rs.2,91,27,000/-. Before the […]
Held that as identity and creditworthiness of the investors is established, merely because of delay in transferring of the shares to the prospective investors, the amount cannot be treated as unexplained investment u/s 68.
Held that addition, only on the basis of information received from investigation wing ignoring all the evidences filed by the assessee, is unsustainable in law
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT held that ITR and bank statements were sufficient to prove the genuinety and for creditworthiness under Section 68 of Income Tax Act.
Held that addition of the amount of unsecured loan sustained as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the loan transactions except filing the affidavits.
