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...
Where assessee had duly substantiated that it had earned a profit from commodities transactions along with complete details supporting the same, AO was not justified in treating the commodity transactions a fictitious arrangement with its associate concerns and adding the income as an unexplained cash credit under Sec.68.
Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Indore) Admittedly the appellant has received the amount in question and the amount is duly deposited in the bank account of the appellant and the appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the said deposits in his bank account and hence the investment in the […]
PCIT Vs Ajay Jaysukhlal Mehta (Gujarat High Court) In a situation in which assessee and it’s proprietorship concern are maintaining separate books of accounts – as in the present case, an assessee may have his own capital of ‘x’ amount, and yet his capital contribution in capital account of a proprietorship concern can be more […]
Pr. CIT Vs Adamine Construction (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The material on record in the form of the orders of the lower appellate authorities disclosed that both the assessee and later the share applicants (upon receiving notice under Section 131 of the Act) had produced documentary proof. These included the assessments and income-tax returns […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court ) Supreme Court in this Case upheld the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Income Tax Department. High Court held that AO did not dispute the veracity of the documents produced. Furthermore, the two individuals who […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. E Smart Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) It is relevant to state that AO in his remand report dated 10.10.2016 did not dispute the veracity of the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and further learned CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences purely on technical ground which is wholly […]
Where AO was of the view that a shareholder of assessee-company had no means to make the subscription of share capital, AO could have asked the source of investment from the shareholder and if the source was not properly explained, addition could have been made in the hands of shareholder as unexplained income but no addition could be made u/s 68 in the hands of assessee-company since it had discharged the initial onus cast upon it by virtue of provisions of section 68.
CIT Vs Maheshchandra G Vakil (Gujarat High Court) HC held that Where assessee proved genuineness of share transactions by contract notes for sale and purchase, bank statement of broker, demat account showing transfer in and out of shares, as also abstract of transactions furnished by stock exchange, Assessing Officer was not justified in treating capital […]
When assessee received advances from customers and the same were subsequently adjusted against goods sold to them, then, the advances could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68, therefore, addition under section 68 made by AO on account of unexplained cash advances was deleted.
Where sale and purchase of shares had taken place only through banking channel at Bombay Stock Exchange and were supported by contract note, income from long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of listed equity shares after payment of STT were rightly claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and AO was precluded in making addition of LTCG as unaccounted income in absence of any supporting evidence.
