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 : 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 : Read ITAT Kolkata's full text order on Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO. Learn why old loans converted into share allotment were dee...
Income Tax : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
DCIT Vs Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) We find that there is no dispute that the assessee has received share application money from six companies, out of which, from three companies assessee has received premium for sums aggregating to Rs.103,80,00,000/-. In the case of Ganesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Feelgood Creation Pvt. Ltd., and Beyond […]
DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi TMT Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Pune) AO found that the assessee company was established dated 10 August 2004 i.e. during the financial year 2004-05 corresponding to the assessment year 2005-06 and it did not carry out any business activity till the year under consideration. Conversely, it has issued shares at a premium of […]
Suraj Pulses Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that as far as the reasons recorded, though there is a specific mention about amount of 20,50,000/- received by way of accommodation entry, however neither there is any mention from whom the assessee had received the amount nor what is the nature of the entry […]
The basic edifice of presumptive scheme u/s 44AD is assessee would not be called to maintain books under the Act and get them audited if profit shown by assessee is otherwise in accordance with prescription of section 44AD of the Act. But maintaining books of account is sine qua non for making addition under section 68. Since […]
The Revenue contended that the Appellant has not proved the genuinity and the credit worthiness of the Mauritius company and therefore, the entire share application money was treated as undisclosed income and added to the returned income by applying Section 68 of the Act.
The onus to prove the identity, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was solely on assessee under section 68 and merely because statutory approvals had been obtained by assessee, viz., FIPB and RBI did not sanctify the transaction especially when according to AO they were all unexplained investment.
PCIT Vs SRM Systems and Software P. Ltd. (Madras High Court) The assessee disclosed share capital advance to the tune of Rs.6,17,81,000/- and they were directed to furnish names and addresses of the persons, who contributed the advance share capital. The assessee, by reply dated 15.12.2010, stated that the advance towards share capital is Rs.5,65,96,723/- however, […]
Y. C. Kallinatha Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee had received a gift of Rs.22.50 lakh from Shri T.C.Shivakumar, who is brother-in- law of the assessee. The assessee had considered the transaction not coming within the purview of section 56(2)(vi) of the I.T.Act since gift was received from a relative covered under the definition of […]
ACIT Vs M/s Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) LANDMARK ORDER – Bhushan group companies get big relief by ITAT DELHI – First Of This Kind Where Addition under section 68 Quashed on Sole Ground of Violation of Natural Justice. – No Second Innings Given. Addition under section 68 deleted of Rs.36.50 Crore in three […]
ITAT Pune partially allows appeal in Amrutlal Gangaji Choudhary Vs. DCIT. Section 68 addition lacks cogent reasons. Remanded for de novo adjudication.
