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...
M/s. SDB Estate Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the assessee, in this case, had filed detailed evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions e.g. copies of form for allotment of shares, confirmation of shareholders and other documents as mentioned above. The department has relied upon the general statement of Shri Mukesh […]
There is nothing on the record to suggest that the assessee had other businesses or that the undisclosed receipts were assessee’s profit out of any other activity other than development of housing project, The Tribunal came to the specific conclusion that the unrecorded consideration was also part of the assessee’s sale transaction of completed residential units and was therefore eligible under Section 80IB [10] of the Act. We do not find any error in such view.
ITO Vs M/s. Mundela Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) With regard to non granting of deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act, treating the unexplained credits as ‘income from other sources’, this issue was considered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd., 79 taxmann.com/379 ITR 330 wherein ‘the income […]
Assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company had jumped to an higher amount in no time when the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise. Also, assessee failed to provide details of persons who purchased the shares. Clearly, assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction, meant to account for undisclsoed income in the garb of long-term capital gain, therefore, such gain had to be assessed as undisclosed credit under section 68.
Addition under section 68 on basis of information received from investigation wing as to assessee having received share application money from alleged entry operator was not justified as assessee had filed sufficient evidences and details to prove identity and creditworthiness of share application and genuineness of transaction of receipt of share application money
PCIT Vs M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (Bombay High Court) In the present case, as noted above, the assessee was a trader of fabrics. The A.O. found three entities who were indulging in bogus billing activities. A.O. found that the purchases made by the assessee from these entities were bogus. This being a finding […]
Since transaction between assessee and truck owners was a liability which assessee had to pay arising from trade transaction and same could not be added under section 68.
This is a simple case of acquiring shares of certain companies from certain shareholders without paying any cash consideration and instead the consideration was settled through issuance of shares to the respective parties. Hence, we hold that provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and accordingly the entire addition deserves to be deleted,
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus shre capital was unjustified as the identity and creditworthiness of share subscribers and genuineness of receipt of share capital stood established and non-production of directors of subscriber companies could not be a sole ground to make addition.
PCIT Vs Chain House International (P) Ltd (Supreme Court of India) In this case Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Madhya Pradesh High Court held that The question raised by the revenue in regard to issuing the share at a premium is purely a question of fact. It is a prerogative […]
