VILDirect | Updates on Income Tax

Caselaws
Notifications
Circulars

ITAT

Income Tax Act - Section 68 – addition on account of share application money – the claim of the assessee is that the CIT (A) erred is sustaining adding u/s 68 out of share application money without considering evidences, which is unjustified and liable to be quashed - HELD - In this case assessee has failed to file sufficient details to prove satisfactorily the source of cash received the AO is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an income nature and it is not necessary for him to locate their exact source - the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the assessee’s account or in the account of a third party - The question of burden of proof cannot be made to depend exclusively upon the fact of a credit entry in the name of the assessee or in the name of a third party - In either case, the burden lies upon the assessee to explain the credit entry, through the onus might shift to the AO under certain circumstances - Where the assessee shows that entries regarding cash credit in a third party’s account are genuine and the sums were in fact received from the third party as loans or deposits, he has discharged the onus - it is for the third party to explain the source of the moneys, and they cannot be charged as the assessee’s income in the absence of any material to indicate that they belong to the assessee - Here in this case assessee has established the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction so far as it relates to all the share applicant - the contention of the AO is accepted and hence the addition so made by the AO is not sustainable and therefore, vacating the addition so made based on the evidences placed, the addition is unwarranted and requires to be deleted – the ground raised is allowed Show More

ITAT

Income Tax Act - Section 68 – addition on account of share application money – the claim of the assessee is that the CIT (A) erred is sustaining adding u/s 68 out of share application money without considering evidences, which is unjustified and liable to be quashed - HELD - In this case assessee has failed to file sufficient details to prove satisfactorily the source of cash received the AO is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an income nature and it is not necessary for him to locate their exact source - the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits, whether they stand in the assessee’s account or in the account of a third party - The question of burden of proof cannot be made to depend exclusively upon the fact of a credit entry in the name of the assessee or in the name of a third party - In either case, the burden lies upon the assessee to explain the credit entry, through the onus might shift to the AO under certain circumstances - Where the assessee shows that entries regarding cash credit in a third party’s account are genuine and the sums were in fact received from the third party as loans or deposits, he has discharged the onus - it is for the third party to explain the source of the moneys, and they cannot be charged as the assessee’s income in the absence of any material to indicate that they belong to the assessee - Here in this case assessee has established the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction so far as it relates to all the share applicant - the contention of the AO is accepted and hence the addition so made by the AO is not sustainable and therefore, vacating the addition so made based on the evidences placed, the addition is unwarranted and requires to be deleted – the ground raised is allowed
ITAT

Income Tax Act - whether the assessment order passed under section 148 is valid in the absence of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act – assessee claims that the assessment order passed under section 148/143(3) of the Act under appeal is bad in law, ITO nei ther issued nor served of statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, is prone to be declared as bad in law – HELD – the CPIO observed that the assessee did not file return in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act – AO has clearly stated in the assessment order that the assessee has filed return on 31.03.2017 in response to notice issued u/s 148 dated 27.03.2017 - The copies of acknowledgement of returns filed also clearly establishes the fact of assessee filing return for the year under consideration originally on 31.03.2017 - The CPIO also admitted the fact that no notice has been issued u/s 143(2) in assessee’s case for the AY under consideration – As regards the notice u/s 143(2), since notice u/s 143(2) was not issued within the period prescribed for the purpose jurisdiction assumed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act was erroneous – the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 148 read with Section 143(3) is void ab initio and bad in law - quashing the reassessment order, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed Show More

ITAT

Income Tax Act - whether the assessment order passed under section 148 is valid in the absence of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act – assessee claims that the assessment order passed under section 148/143(3) of the Act under appeal is bad in law, ITO neither issued nor served of statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, is prone to be declared as bad in law – HELD – the CPIO observed that the assessee did not file return in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act – AO has clearly stated in the assessment order that the assessee has filed return on 31.03.2017 in response to notice issued u/s 148 dated 27.03.2017 - The copies of acknowledgement of returns filed also clearly establishes the fact of assessee filing return for the year under consideration originally on 31.03.2017 - The CPIO also admitted the fact that no notice has been issued u/s 143(2) in assessee’s case for the AY under consideration – As regards the notice u/s 143(2), since notice u/s 143(2) was not issued within the period prescribed for the purpose jurisdiction assumed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act was erroneous – the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 148 read with Section 143(3) is void ab initio and bad in law - quashing the reassessment order, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Notification No. Notification No. 105/2022 | 01-Sep-2022

Quoting permanent account number or Aadhaar number at the time of entering into specified transactions like deposit of cash, withdrawal of cash and opening of a current account or cash credit account with certain institutions will not apply to the Central Gove rnment, the State Government or the Consular Office

Notification No. Notification No. 103/2022 | 24-Aug-2022

Notification No. No. 102/2022 | 22-Aug-2022

Designates all Chief Judicial Magistrate Courts of the State of Chhattisgarh as Special Courts for the purposes of section 280A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and section 84 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 201 5

Circular No. Press Release: 2022-2023/650 | 05-Aug-2022

Circular No. Press Release: 2022-2023/651 | 05-Aug-2022

Circular No. Circular No. 17/2022 | 19-Jul-2022

08-Nov-2023

By Vivek Jalan, Partner, Tax Connect Advisory Services LLP
Cross border Payment Aggregators like Amazon (Pay) India, Google India, Razorpay, Pine Labs, PayPal, Cashfree, Paymate, etc to be directly regulated by RBI now...
Read more VIEW ALL

TAX VISTA

Your Weekly Tax Recap

Articles

Head Office

Email Us

Call Us