Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


SCC Investments v. ITO (2022) 98 ITR 38 (SN) (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Unsecured loan-Voluntarily disclosing Rs. 22 crores before Settlement Commission-Amount laundered and re-introduced in garb of unsecured loan through bank account of creditor-Interest expenditure not allowable. [S. 37(1), 131, 132(4)]

Sarika A. Sanap v. ACIT (2022) 98 ITR 44 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Long-term capital gains-Penny stocks–Price of little known shares increasing 56 times in 28 months-Denial of exemption is affirmed.[S. 10(38) 45, 131]

Ranganath Salke v. Add. CIT (2022) 98 ITR 21 (SN) (Pune)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Agricultural income-Failure to produce evidence-Agricultural income was estimated of Rs. 5 lakhs and balance addition of Rs. 48 lakhs was confirmed. [S. 10(1)]

Nuland Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 98 ITR 28 (SN)(Hyd) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Investors declaring meagre income or not filing returns-Investments made through banking channels not sufficient-Additions was confirmed.

Dy. CIT v. R. Geetha (Smt.) (2022) 98 ITR 50 (SN)(Chennai) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained investment-Partner-Reconciliation was filed-Deletion of addition is justified.

Dy. CIT v. Arun Singhania (2022) 98 ITR 12 (SN) (Raipur)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Firm-Partner-Cash reflected in the ledger account of the firm-Deletion of addition is justified.

Combined Merchants P. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 98 ITR 26 (SN)(Kok) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money-Net worth of lending investor is sufficient to explain its creditworthiness-Addition is not sustainable.

Aarthi Rathi (Ms.) v. ITO(IT) (2022) 98 ITR 16 (SN)(Hyd) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Gift from Mother-In-Law-Identity of donor established-Addition is held to be not valid.

Sanjeet Kanwar (Smt.) v. ITO (2022) 98 ITR 12 (Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained investments-Limited scrutiny assessment-Telescoping-Peak-Cash deposits in bank greater than turnover-Scrutiny restricted to verify deposits-Jurisdiction not exceeded-Assessee failing to substantiate with documentary evidence-Cash deposit treated as unexplained-Bank entries showing deposits and withdrawals-Assessing Officer directed to give benefit of telescoping. [S. 69]

Navdeep Sood v ITO (2022)98 ITR 1 (SMC) (Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Cash deposit in bank account-Telescoping-Peak credit-Failure to give explanation-Reassessment was affirmed-On merit the Assessing Officer was directed to work out peak credit and restrict the addition to extent of peak credits. [S. 147, 148]