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...
Merely because the investment was considerably large and as noted, several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through P5AHIML would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device.
Since assessee had explained both the nature & source of share capital received with premium and also submitted PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, therefore, addition under section 68 was unjustified.
ITO Vs M/s Yadu Steels & Power Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to […]
ITO Vs M/s Megasun Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Since assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by filing sufficient evidences and accordingly, the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him and as AO failed to do so, addition of share […]
In present case there are evidences and material to show that the shareholder company was only a paper company having no source of income, but had made substantial and huge investment in the form of share application money.
No addition could have been made u/s 68 of the Act in view of the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search to which this impugned addition could be related.
AO was justified in making addition under section 68 of credit balance showing in assessees books of accounts against the Nil balance shown by the creditors in their books of accounts as on verification of the books of accounts of the creditor it was found that there was no balance outstanding against assessee and the same indicated that the credit balance shown in the books of the assessee was bogus.
Merely because assessee company had filed all primary evidence, it could not be said that onus on assessee to establish credit worthiness of investor companies stood discharged u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Recent Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd.- After this judgement, the authorities would get right to question the integrity of every issue or reissue of share capital, especially those by company in which public are not substantially interested because these companies generally issue shares on private placement basis.
Assessee company failed to prove genuineness of investor – provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act attracted – Supreme Court The Apex court in the case of NRA Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd (SLP 29855 of 2018) held that the assessee company is under a legal obligation to prove the source of receipt of […]
