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...
CIT(A) has in his order relied upon circumstantial evidence and human probabilities to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called rules of suspicious transaction
Mahavir Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and […]
Since all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was satisfied by assessee and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him, therefore, without doing so, the addition made by AO based on conjectures and surmises could not be justified.
CIT Vs M/s. Sree Ganesh Trading Company (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: AO was not justified in making addition to the income of assessee under section 68 on account of alleged unexplained credits as assessee-firm had proved identity, creditworthiness of the creditors from whom it had received credits and if AO had doubt on the source […]
As assessee had duly proved source of cash deposit in her bank account to be opening cash balance and gift from her parents, no addition could be made under section 68.
Since assessee had brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares were genuine and AO had brought nothing controverting material to deny the same, therefore, the long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s. KAFL claimed as exempt by assessee could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of investigation wing.
M/s. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has received the sum of Rs. 1030/- per share as Share Premium. It is the case of the assessing officer is that he will accept the share premium only to the extent […]
Psychotropics Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The ld. CIT(A) appears to have stressed on the fact that the impugned share holders has shown meager income in their return of income. In our opinion, the income/losses declared by the investor companies is not a sole criterion to examine the creditworthiness of the […]
When AO has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has paid over and above the purchase consideration as claimed and evident from the bank account then, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain.
AO was not justified in making addition under section 68 where assessee had furnished evidences such as PAN and copies of bank statements of lenders which proved identity and creditworthiness of lenders and genuineness of impugned loan transactions.
