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 : Read the detailed analysis of ITO Vs Neetaben Snehalkumar Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) where Section 254(2) was scrutinized for rectific...
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 : Assessing Officers should follow the sequence as noted below for applying provisions of section 68 of the Act: Step 1: Whether the...
ITAT Delhi held in the case ITO vs. Rekha Bansal that it is clear that the CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee on the basis of information received from the respective banks of the creditors u/s 133(6) wherein the CIT (A) found that the creditors had sufficient bank balance in their accounts before issuing cheques to the assessee.
DCIT Vs M/s Ansh Intermediate Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Lucknow) The addition cannot be sustained only for the simple reason that these shareholder companies have not responded in first round of commission.
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Shri Ashutosh Garg vs. ACIT held that when the assessee had produced his copy of bank accounts showing the advancing of loan to non-resident and its repayment collection along with affidavit filed both by non-resident and assessee
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of ITO vs. Ms. Khalil M. Bharwani that the whole transaction of purchase and sale of shares giving rise to long term capital gain has been duly explained step by step and supported by adequate and reliable evidence.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principle CIT vs. Matchless Glass Services Pvt. Ltd. that the fact that a common address is shared by several companies may not be a sole ground to doubt the identity or the creditworthiness of the companies
In the case of ACIT Vs. Prem Castings Pvt. Ltd. ITAT, Delhi Bench reversed the order of CIT (A) who deleted addition of Rs. 3,46,00,000/- after relying upon the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Lovely Exports (216 CTR 195) in which it was held that once the assessee has produced documents regarding
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of ITO vs. M/s. Superline Construction P. Ltd. that the assessee had duly discharged the burden of proof, onus of proof and explained the source of share capital and advances received by established the identity
CIT Vs. Five Vision Promotors Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- AO made addition on account of share application money u/s 68 which was confirmed by the CIT. On appeal ITAT held that assessee has proved identity, genuineness & creditworthiness of the investors.
Cama Hotels Ltd, Vs DCIT (ITAT AHEMDABAD) When the assessee had furnished the PAN of the concerned depositors, the Assessing Officer ought to have made inquiry from the jurisdictional Assessing Officers to find out the current address of the depositors.
Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT: (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)- there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine and further observed that the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters.
