Home › Archive for Income-Tax Act › Page 544
Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Emgee Integrated Logistics Private Limited v. ACIT (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Cash deposits-Demonetization-Burden is on the AO to prove.

Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik v. ITO (Surat) 201 ITD 858/ 226 TTJ 945( SMC)(Surat)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained money-Demonetization-Cash deposits in the bank accounts were not abnormal as compared to the transaction in the earlier period-Appeal is allowed.[S. 69. 69A]

Abdul Razak v. ITO (IT) (Chennai) 202 ITD 161 (SMC) (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 68: Cash credits Demonetization-Withdrwals of family members-Addition is deleted.[S. 69,115BBE]

Rahul Gupta (HUF) v. ACIT [2023] 201 ITD 302 (SMC) (Raipur)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits Unexplained money-Shares-Accommodation entries-Penny stock-Bogus entries of long term capital gains-Tax on specified income-Determination of tax in certain cases-Addition is affirmed under section. 115BBE of the Act. [S. 45, 69, 69A ,115BBE, 133(6)]

Moss Hospitality (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 201 ITD 726 (Mum (Trib.)

S. 68: Cash credits-Unexplained money-Demonetisation-Books of account is audited-Matter remanded. [S. 69]

Shail Jayesh Shah v .ITO (2023)101 ITR 38 (SN.) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained money-Demonetisation-Cash available in old demonetised currency-Withdrawal from bank upto November 8, 2016-Disallowance to that extent not sustainable-Balance disallowance of cash is proper.[S. 69]

Movefast Automobiles (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (2023) 201 ITD 766 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital-Share premium-Discharged the burden by filing copy of ITR,balance sheet of invvestors,PAN address,confirmation of account ,bank statement and valuation report-DCF method-Addition is deleted .[S. 56(2)(viib),133(6) R.11UA]

Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. ACIT (2023) 151 taxmann.com 339 / 104 ITR 519 / 223 TTJ 393 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-demonetization-Large cash deposited-Sale bills-Each sale bill less than Rs. 2 Lakhs-Books of account is not rejected-Addition cannot be made merely because bills did not contain name of customers.[S. 115BBE, 145(3)]

ACIT v. Anju Jain (Smt.)(2023) 200 ITD 389 / 226 TTJ 146(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits- Penny stocks-Report of Kolkata Investigation Directorate-Shares held for morethan 15-25 years-Not justified in doubting the transactions-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed-Issue not raised before the CIT(A) cannot be raised under rule 27 of the ITATRules,1963 .[S. 10(38), 45,ITATR. 27]

Sarfaraz S. Furniturewalla v. Afshan Sharfali Ashok Kumar & Ors.(2024) 339 CTR 75/ 166 taxmann.com 425/ 467 ITR 230(Bom)( HC) Editorial : Refer , Narayan Devarajan Iyengar v. ITO( [2023] 201 ITD 503 (Mum)( Trib)

S. 194I : Deduction at source – Rent – Alternative accommodation–Transit rent -Developer or Builder – Development agreement – Hardship Allowance / Rehabilitation Allowance / Displacement Allowance,- Not revenue receipt – Not liable to tax – Not liable to deduct tax at source .[ S. 4 , Art.226 ]