-
CASH DEPOSITED DURING DEMONETISATION PROPERLY RECORDED IN BOOKS. DISALLOWANCE DELETED FCA BPMUNDRA 9314501680
-
Q.Consequences when the only reason for making and upholding the disallowance of the interest is the statement recorded by the officers of the Department and that too not by the Assessing Officer himself and that too which were not made available to the assessee for cross examination ? The ITAT- Lucknow M/S. Keymen Laminators Private … vs DCIT… passed order on 2 November, 2021. For full order kindly click the link. Section 68, 153A, 133(6)
-
Section 68 Cash deposits in the bank and AO made the addition u/s 68 instead of u/s 69, and hence the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.DIRISALA BALA MURALI vs. ITO. ITAT VISHAKAPATNAM on Jul 29, 2020. https://www.bpmundraca.com/it-cases-232-2021/
-
Demonetization . Deposit of cash into bank. Before making addition for cash deposit into bank during Demonetization period the Ld. AO has to consider on merits the opening balance for which evidence were produced for allowing credit of cash withdrawal, financials of previous years and audit report if any. Accordingly, the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the files of the Assessing Officer. ITAT- Bangalore in the case of Sri Mohan Ramachandra Basawa, … vs ITO on on 20 January, 2021. Section 68, 69A and 115BBE:
-
Section 68, 69A and 115BBE: Demonetization . Deposit of cash into bank. Where the assessee proves that regular bank deposits of cash from 01.04.2016 to 2.11.2016, as well as after demonetization and also Opening balance are commensurate with the accepted turnover then the addition was not warranted and it is directed to be deleted. ITAT- Gauhati on on 20 January, 2021 in the case of Nurul Islam, Nagaon vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-Nagaon, … A.Y. 2017-18
-
ITAT DELHI Nov 6, 2020 held that Section 68 is applicable only when the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer satisfactory in respect of the sum so credited / loan taken. The explanation offered by the assessee that the bank account and the capacity of the creditor who have given the loan amount was proved through ITR details of the said parties along with bank statements and confirmations which clearly shows the proper balance in their respective bank accounts and their capacity to loan the amount to any other party as well. Sum credited in the bank account of directors immediately before the issue of cheque to the appellant is not a ground to hold that sum received is unaccounted income. BMR PLYMERS (P) LTD. vs. ITO
-
Section 132,148 Cancelled receipt of Rs. 11 lacs showing total transaction of Rs. 61 lacs signed by Sanjeev on behalf of Romy was found and Romy surrendered Rs. 11 Lacs only. AO has not confronted contents of said receipts from S. Addition made of Rs. 50 Lacs is deleted in the absence of any other corroborative material before AO. ROMI LAL NANDA vs.ITO. ITAT Delhi order date 28.9.2020. IT-CASES-212-2020
-
Section 68- AY 2011-12- ITAT SURAT- May 4, 2020 When the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR Numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the revenue’s case and in order to sustain the addition the revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and mere non-compliance of summons issued by the Assessing Officer under section 131 by the alleged creditors will not be sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. DCIT vs. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
-
Supreme Court on 24.4.2020 held that no addition u/s 68 can be allowed when the CIT Appeal deleted the penalty on the same credit entry on the ground that the assessee establish the credentials. High Court also held that when the books of accounts rejected for GP addition purpose, but then, if those books of accounts did disclose certain other assets, which are wrongly shown to be liabilities, and for acquisition of which the assessee did not show the source, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to use the books of accounts for this purpose. Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs. ITO
-
Section 147, 132 Gujarat High Court on 25 February, 2020 held that when Search and seizure of incriminating material is at third party and have not in the name of or in hand writings or signature of the assessee, also no such transaction is with third party then in the absence of any other independent material to corroborate the statement of third party no addition can be made. it-cases-205-2020