The assessee received Rs. 125 lacs in cash from SGCFCL for ...

Cash payment of Rs. 125 lacs received for facilitation but not recorded; Assessee failed to prove non-income nature.

Case Laws Income Tax

August 21, 2024

The assessee received Rs. 125 lacs in cash from SGCFCL for facilitation work, which was not recorded in the books. The assessee claimed the amount was paid to 2500 shareholders, but failed to provide evidence of such payments. The onus was on the assessee to prove the impugned payment did not constitute income, which the assessee failed to discharge. The assessment was based on incriminating material and the assessee's statement admitting receipt of cash payment. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment, rejecting the assessee's arguments.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The assessee received Rs. 125 lacs in cash from SGCFCL for ...

Cash payment of Rs. 125 lacs received for facilitation but not recorded; Assessee failed to prove non-income nature.

Case Laws Income Tax

August 21, 2024

You may also like:

During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in their bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition...

HC held that u/s 40A, cash payments are restricted to prevent false income claims. Exemptions allowed for special circumstances where bank transactions are impossible....

Assessee engaged in business of commission agent (Aadatia) for agricultural products. AO made addition u/s 68 treating entire cash deposits in bank account as...

In the case, ITAT decided on two main issues: 1. Addition on account of Gold and Silver Jewellery u/s 69A: Assessee disclosed Rs. 70,00,000 as unexplained investment...

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - cash deposits during the demonetization period - the sources of such amount may be either of household savings or past income or the...

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained credit - Onus to prove - share capital introduced - the assessee failed to explain the sources of investment of cash of Rs. 10 lacs each by...

Addition u/s 69A - unexplained income - cash deposits made into bank account during demonetization period - assessee neither furnished stock summary nor bills/vouchers...

Contravention of sections 18(2) and 18(3) read with section 64(2) of FERA, 1973 established. Company failed to recover export dues without RBI permission or extension....

Hon'ble ITAT held that assessee failed to prove business expediency for cash purchases exceeding Rs. 20,000 hence disallowance u/s 40A(3) was justified. Cash deposits in...

Addition u/s 40A(3) - cash payment in excess of prescribed limit - Genuineness or otherwise of payment is not a criteria to exclude cash payment in excess of prescribed...

Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash credit - It is well settled principle that the repayment of cash credit would not prove the genuineness of cash credit. It is the...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that surcharge is not leviable when the total income is less than Rs. 50 lacs. The Assessing Officer had contended that...

Unexplained cash payments - There is also no evidence to suggest that cash withdrawn from ETLL was unused and kept with the assessee idle though repeatedly withdrawals...

Levy of personal penalty of Rs. 10 lacs u/r 26 of CER, on appellant being DGM-Finance of the company - The appellant being worked as DGM Finance ultimately all the...

Cash deposits made during demonetization period from cash withdrawals and rental income received in cash were substantiated through cash flow statements and bank...

Quick Updates: