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...
ITO Vs M/s. Necleus Steel Private Limited (ITAT Delhi) In this case, assessee received an amount of Rs.67.50 crores from M/s. Unitech Ltd., as advance against the sale of the property. The assessee filed confirmation from M/s. Unitech Ltd., along with its bank statement and acknowledgment of filing of the ITR with balance sheet. The […]
Zion Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The investment in the share of the assessee company by the above five companies whose directors appeared before the Assessing Officer and whose statements were recorded and full details were filed substantiating the identity and creditworthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of […]
DCIT Vs M/s. Karthik Construction Co. (ITAT Mumbai) As could be seen, the Assessing Officer raised suspicion on the loan repayment by doubting the genuineness of the unsecured loan availed by the assessee against which such loan repayment was made. However, as per the facts on record, unsecured loans which were repaid by the assessee […]
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee who derives income from house property and income from other sources, filed her return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 27/07/2010 declaring an income of Rs. 17,75,810/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dated 25/08/2011 was issued and served on the assessee on 06/09/2011. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the information called for.
This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 04.5.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2004-05 on the following grounds:-
Section 68 incorporates only a rule of evidence, placing the onus of proof on the assessee. There have been hardly any amendments in this section since its introduction.
This is an appeal by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Tirupati, dated 31-03-2017, treating the deposits made in the bank account as business turnover, whereas AO was of the opinion that these are unexplained income U/s. 68 of the Act.
ACIT Vs Gowthami Chemicals & Pesticides (P) Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In this case, the assessee has furnished the confirmation letters explaining the identity of the shareholder, address and sources of income of the contributor to the share capital along with the evidence for land holdings and copies of IT returns in 4 cases before the […]
