Income Tax : Discover the tax implications and rates for undisclosed sources of income under Sections 68-69D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn...
Income Tax : Explore the heavy tax implications on taxpayers for unexplained investments and expenditures under Income Tax Act sections 69 to 6...
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 the differences between income tax Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C in India, their taxability, and implications. Understand...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : Explore the detailed ITAT Mumbai order analysis of Yogesh P. Thakkar vs DCIT, focusing on disputed long-term capital gains and com...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in DCIT vs. Dilip B. Jiwrajka covering appeals against additions of unexplained income...
Income Tax : Explore the case of Shaily Prince Goyal vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) regarding cash credits from penny stock sales. Detailed analysis of S...
Income Tax : Explore the Delhi High Court's judgment on ITSC's conclusive nature for AY, assessing reassessment under Section 148 of the Income...
Income Tax : Discover the ITAT Chennai verdict on Santhilal Jain Vijay Kumar Vs ITO, addressing taxation on excess stock and unexplained marria...
Harish Aswal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has submitted all documentary evidences before the authorities below including ledger account of Centurian Bank Account No.442756061 available at page 108 to 138 of assessee’s Paper Book before the AO as well as before Ld.CIT(A) which clearly shows that the […]
Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee had used a pre arranged device in form of booking of bogus purchases of shares. This finding of the Assessing Officer is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any material on record. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,32,850/- made u/s 69C is hereby sustained.
This Article discusses Tax Treatment of Cash Credit, Unexplained investments, Unexplained money, Amount of investments not fully disclosed in books of account, Unexplained expenditure and Amount borrowed or repaid on hundi in cash under section 68,Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C and Section 69D respectively of Income Tax Act, 1961.
A. Johnkuma Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Facts- The assessee, a Proprietor of M/s. A.Johnkumar Cost Price Shop and M/s.Johnkumar Real Agency, is engaged in the business of running a Departmental Store and real estate business respectively. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s.132 of the Act, on 17.09.2016. During the course of search, a […]
DCIT Vs Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In these cases, the AO reopened the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, on the basis of information received from the DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai to the effect that during the previous year the assessee had obtained fake purchase bills from bogus parties who used to […]
DCIT Vs Vipul Suresh Kumar Modi (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that no addition can be made for Transactions in Penny Stocks in respect of unabated assessments which have become final in absence of any incriminating material found during search. The brief facts of the case relevant to the issue before us are that the Assessee, […]
Seven Jewels Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) As per the provisions of section 69C of the Act, in case the assessee fails to explain the source of expenditure or part thereof to the satisfaction of the AO, such expenditure shall be considered as unexplained expenditure and be deemed to be income of the assessee. In the […]
Can capital contribution of the individual partners credited to their accounts in the books of the firm be taxed as cash credit in the hands of the firm, where the partners have admitted their capital contribution but failed to explain satisfactorily the source of receipt in their individual hands?
It is amply clear that the additions under sections 68 and 69C of the Act can be made provided the transaction takes place during the previous year / financial year. Further, for making addition under section 68 of the Act, the assessee must fail to offer explanation and for making addition under section 69C of the Act, the source of the expenditure must remain unproved. In the present case, the assessee had duly explained the sources of the credit and the expenditure, respectively.
Once bogus purchases had gone into profit and loss account, and sales were not doubted, only option left with AO was to make addition of gross profit embedded in bogus purchases. Accordingly, AO was directed to restrict addition to the extent of 9.25% of impugned purchases as assessee had shown gross profit ratio of 9.25% in the year ending March, 2012.
