Tag: addition u/s 68
Addition u/s 68 made without issuing notice to creditors deleted by ITAT as AO failed to conduct inquiry. Had creditors not responded, addition might be justified ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2874 (2019) (04) ITAT In the instant case, the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal against …
Capital introduced by partner can not be taxed in firms hand as undisclosed income. It could be added in the hands of partners only – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2866 (2019) (04) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties India Rice Mills vs. CIT …
Sale of land made by partnership firm can not be added in partner’s hand. Assessment has to be done in the right hands ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2861 (2019) (04) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties ITO Vs. Ch. Atchaiah reported at 218 ITR …
Share application money received vastly in excess of the authorized capital was valid reasons to issue reassessment notice u/s 148 – High Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2849 (2019) (03) HC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Sheo Nath Singh vs. ACIT, 82 ITR 148 …
Agriculture income can only be estimated by considering land holding size. Even big farmers not maintain details expected by Tax Authorities – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2823 (2019) (03) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Sumati Dayal, 214 ITR 801 Durga Prasad More, …
Addition u/s 68 for cash deposited in bank received from absconding debtor on the ground that notice sent was received back unserved, deleted ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2822 (2019) (03) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties CIT Vs. Sun Builders, 41 taxman.com 484 (Guj) …
Addition u/s 68 for differences in outstanding balances not confirmed by parties cannot be made without doubting identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2529 (2018) 09 ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: Aurobindo Sanitary Stores vs. CIT 2005-(IT3)-GJX-0127-ORI. DCIT vs. …
CA made a big mistake by withdrawing appeal against the penalty order on winning quantum appeal. CIT(A) was not justified to dismiss appeal as withdrawn and not deciding it on merits – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2506 (2018) 09 ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the …
Unexplained cash credit addition u/s 68 for house constructed deleted on the basis of cash in hand balance in balance sheet filed along with return ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2403 (2018) 07 ITAT The instant appeal had been filed by the assessee against the Order of the …
An undated confirmation letter cannot be rejected unless proved false. ITAT deletes addition made u/s 68/69 for cash deposits in bank account ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2386 (2018) 06 ITAT The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax …
