SB dash and co chartered accountants

01/05/2026

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE AND LIKE THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL

1 like. "REVENUE RECOGNITION - ICDS IV"

24/04/2026

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE AND LIKE THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL

1 like. "METHODS OF ACCOUNTING ( Section 276-278) INCOME TAX ACT 2025 BY SB DASH"

02/09/2025

*Opening Cash Balance or Cash Carried forward from previous Financial year, can not be treated as Unexplained - Chattisgarh HC*

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently reinforced this principle in *Nanakchand Agrawal vs. ITO* , holding that

"A closing cash balance from a previous year, when carried forward as the opening balance of the succeeding year, it cannot be taxed as unexplained money under *Section 69A* of the Income Tax Act."

Key Legal Takeaways:

- Section 69A applies only when the assessee is found to be the owner of money in the current financial year without a satisfactory explanation.

- If the cash is traceable to previously assessed income or disclosed assets, it cannot be deemed unexplained in the subsequent year.

- The court emphasized that each assessment year is independent, and taxing a previously accepted closing balance violates this principle.

*Practical Implication*

This is relevant in demonetization-era assessments or where large cash balances are carried forward.

SB DASH - SAFAR
Support our Knowledge Education and Journalism initiative through a voluntary donation to SarvaSiddhi Ganapati Trust. The amount is utilised for development of a unique Devotional Village, Building Devotional Quotient (DQ) among children and youth to create a society with humanitarian value (HV) And charitable activities for keeping alive SHANATAN.

10/08/2025

SUBSCRIBE MY WHATSAPP CHANNEL FOR LATEST UPDATE

15/07/2025

23/05/2025

*Merely producing invoices and making payments through banks is insufficient proof of actual supply.*

Reliable Trading Company vs. Joint Director, DGGI Zonal Unit, Meerut [WRIT TAX No. – 1177 of 2025]

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime without actual supply of goods or services constitutes fraud and is squarely covered under *Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.*

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Ksh*tij Shailendra, upheld the department’s action and dismissed the writ petition. Relying on precedents including State of Karnataka vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Shiv Trading vs. State of U.P., the court emphasized that merely producing invoices and making payments through banks is insufficient proof of actual supply.

SAFAR - SB DASH

18/05/2025

*CIVIL / CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF A PARTNER OF A CA FIRM* -

The Gujarat High Court cancelled a case filed by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) against a partner at Deloitte Haskins and Sells.

The case was about not reporting related party transactions in the audit report of Mafatlal Industries Limited.

A criminal case was filed by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) in 2018 under section 143 of the Companies Act, against Rayan Salivati, Deloitte’s partner.

The filed complaint reported that, as an auditor, he did not properly disclose some transactions with related parties in the financial statements. This was against the legal rules, especially Accounting Standard 18. Because of this, he could be prosecuted under Section 147(2) of the Act. A formal investigation was also started based on this complaint.

A petition was registered by Salivati for cancelling the proceedings.

The petitioner raised an argument that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) failed to notify how he himself was involved in commission of the reported crime.

It was argued that an individual partner of the audit firm cannot be personally held responsible for a crime that is said to have been committed by Deloitte Haskins, which is a partnership firm.

Therefore, taking legal action against the petitioner as an individual is not valid.

The High Court has dismissed the ROC’s criminal complaint against Deloitte.

The High Court stated, “ *In order to bring a partner of the partnership firm within the outline of civil or criminal liability, it has to be proved that they acted in a fraudulent manner or colluded in any fraud. If it is not proved, then the partner cannot be held for punishment under Sections 139 to 146 of the Companies Act.”
*
It further stated, “While examining the questioned in light of the aforesaid law, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner, who has been joined in an individual capacity without joining M/s. Deloitte Haskins as an accused, is not needed to be sent for facing trial.”

23/06/2023

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=658692806274904&id=100064025708631&mibextid=ZbWKwL

PUMPING & DUMPING
Headache for SEBI...still an incredible achievement :

SEBI OBSERVATIONS:
Suspicious transactions of the nature of pump-n-dump, insider trading, front running, etc, - The parties should be presumed guilty.
And it is the accused who would be required to prove their innocence.

On June 19, SEBI ordered the impounding of Rs 126 crore of the illicit profits of a pump-and-dump scheme in which the alleged mastermind collaborated with 225 other persons on five scrips.

The order, which runs into 246 pages and puts on notice for impounding another Rs 18 crore, presents a depressing, and yet fascinating, description of the alleged scam.

FASCINATING & DEPRESSING:
Fascinating because the scam was engineered on a much higher scale and planning, which was followed by an equally detailed investigation where SEBI turned over multiple stones to piece together the puzzle.

Depressing because the alleged modus operandi is nearly identical with past schemes with just new tools and technology.

The SEBI order says that :
One "mastermind" allegedly engaged in a scheme of price-and-volume creation in five scrips.

This was followed up by mass SMS to numerous investors promising rapid rise in price.

A "euphoria" was created, SEBI said, and the gullible public rushed in to buy. And the alleged perpetrators offloaded, making large profits.

There was the same initial volume creation with price rise in the first stage, followed by sharing widely the "news" of high prospects of this company, and when gullible investors start buying, the perpetrators sell, make profits, followed by a price slump.

SEBI's Digital Investigation:

SEBI meticulously investigated, using techniques even more innovative than earlier.

It approached the telephone companies and obtained names of resellers of SMS products.

The buyer was identified and his details gathered.

The promoters of the five companies and those who traded were identified.

Then came the hard drudgery of compilation of details of hundreds of such persons including their call records, bank accounts, family and personal connections, etc.

Amazingly, SEBI sought data from Zomato, Swiggy, MakeMyTrip, apart from email services providers like Gmail and Yahoo. This is commendable.

One can only imagine the number of legal hoops that even a regulator may have to jump through to collect details from these giant online services who are fiercely protective of customer data and privacy.

Finally, analysis was presented of the persons and their transactions at various stages of this alleged scam.

The parties were grouped and profits made by each group calculated and impounded – meaning they were required to be deposited in an escrow account till these proceedings were completed.

The parties are also debarred from dealings in the securities markets in the meantime and their assets frozen till they deposit the profits.

Tech, Hawala Headaches
Some observations can be made.

This related to the year 2019 when mobile voice calls and SMSs were more prevalent.

Today, as SEBI has highlighted in several recent cases, advanced messaging apps are used that give anonymity of sender, messages and even of calls.

In 2019, websites were also used to publicise such recommendations. Now there are YouTube videos, Telegram channels, etc.
While, earlier, connections could be traced through banking transactions between parties,

SEBI has acknowledged the presence of a thriving cash/hawala economy to move and share profits without leaving any trace.

These also raise concerns about money-laundering, tax evasion and, worse, moving monies across the border and back.

Stock scams and money laundering transactions seem to not only make a toxic mix, but possibly even add to the total gains.

One can only hope that the guilty are deprived of their ill-gotten gains and punished in as many cases as possible, setting examples so that at least future perpetrators are discouraged.

03/06/2023

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=646472697496915&id=100064025708631&mibextid=CDWPTG

TRUSTS/NGOs FILE RETURN WELL BEFORE DUE DATE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER INCOME TAX ACT:

E-Filing Of “Audit Report” Beyond The Date, Violative Of CBDT Circular: ITAT Denies Section 11 Exemption to Trust

1. The appellant/assessee trust is a religious-cum-charitable trust registered under Section 12AA(1)(b)(i) with the CIT (Exemption), Bhopal.

2. The registration granted to the assessee trust was effective as of April 1, 2015.

3. The assessee trust had e-filed its return of income, declaring nil income (after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act).

4. An indication was issued by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, in which the assessee’s claim for exemption was declined for the reason that it was to be allowed only if Form 10B along with the return of income were furnished electronically within the "due date".

5. The assessee, on receipt of the intimation, filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and also moved an application for rectification of a mistake with the A.O. The application for rectification of the mistake was rejected. In the meantime, the assessee uploaded Form 10B electronically on June 21, 2019.

6. The CIT (Appeals) observed that the assessee trust had filed Form 10B r.w.r. 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, on June 21, 2019, i.e., much after the "due date" for filing its return of income u/s. 139 of the Income Tax Act.

7. The department contended that the assessee-trust was obligated to e-file or upload its "audit report" u/s. 12A(b) in Form 10B a/w its return of income, which it had failed to do. Therefore, its entitlement for exemption was rightly declined by the DCIT, CPC, vide intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, which order was thereafter sustained by the CIT (Appeals).

DECISION BY ITAT:
The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)

The ITAT noted that the A.O., after treating the assessee as an unregistered trust, was obligated to have considered its claim for deduction of expenses as they were raised in the income and expenditure account.

The ITAT upheld the decline of the assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 11, but at the same time restored the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to consider the assessee’s claim for deduction of expenses as debited in the income and expenditure account.

Case Title: Shri Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sangh Versus ITO (Exemption)

Case No.: ITA Nos. 15 & 16/RPR/2022

Date: 22.05.2023

29/01/2023

https://youtu.be/seYSJsRWkY0

Understanding the financials, Market reaction, probable impact on economy...

22/08/2022

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has amended the rule relating to FTC.

CBDT (Central Board of
Direct Taxes) has made changes in Rule 128 of the Income Tax Act, 1962.

A resident taxpayer who has credit for the amount of any foreign tax paid in a country outside India by way of deduction or otherwise will be required to furnish the statement in Form 67 on or before the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 to claim credit of such taxes. Form 67 will also be required to be furnished in a case the carry backward of loss of the current year results in refund of foreign tax for which credit has been claimed in any previous years.

The Finance Ministry said in a statement that now the statement in Form No. 67 can be submitted on or before the end of the relevant assessment year.

Taxpayers filing Income Tax Return (ITR) within the stipulated time can claim credit for tax paid outside India till the end of the assessment year.

Till now, the credit of tax deposited abroad (FTC) could be taken only if Form-67 along with the required documents was submitted within the stipulated time. Due to this provision, the ability to claim tax for tax paid outside India would have been limited.

CBDT has decided to implement this amendment from the retrospective date i.e. April 1, 2022. Due to this, this facility can be availed on all FTC credit claims submitted in the current financial year. That is, it will be applicable to all claims of foreign tax credit filed during the financial year 2022-23.