Income Tax : Section 115BBE imposes a high tax rate on unexplained income to prevent tax evasion. Learn about tax rates, penalties, and complia...
Income Tax : The Sections by which the assessees are suffering too much due to high pitched assessments passed by NFAC are from 68 to 69D and 1...
Income Tax : Learn about Income Tax Returns (ITR) forms for different taxpayers, filing methods, and requirements. Includes details on ITR-1, I...
Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Income Tax : Explore the intricacies of gold taxation in India, covering physical gold, paper gold, gold derivatives, inheritance tax, and comp...
Income Tax : Additional income offered by assessee on account of cash and excess stock is liable to be taxed as business income and not unexpla...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules bad debt recovery as business income, deleting Rs. 1 crore addition under Section 69A. Read full details on the...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur held that addition of the amount already recorded as cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash deposits under s...
Income Tax : ITAT Lucknow held that addition by calculating sales on hypothetical basis and completely ignoring various evidences submitted dur...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money not legally sustainable since na...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that PCIT has taken divergent view from that of AO without giving the basis for invoking of provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order passed by PCIT u/s. 263 not justifiable.
ITAT Bangalore deleted addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money after examining the cash withdrawn and cash deposit amounts, since cash withdrawn is more than cash deposit.
PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order and compute correct taxable income by giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Being aggrieved against the revision order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
It was held that assessee to provide concrete evidence establishing the genuineness of the cash deposits in accordance with CBDT Circular wherein the various instructions had been issued by CBDT dated 21.2.2017, 3.3.2017, 15.11.2017 & 9.8.2019.
ITAT Bangalore in the case of cash deposit during demonetization period directed assessee to file KYC of the depositors and accordingly directed AO to verify the same and allow if found in order.
ITAT Ahmedabad grants stay of tax recovery in Siddhi Parag Patel vs ITO case. The dispute centers on unexplained land investments and tax demand revisions.
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 justified as AO was fully ignorant about verification of unsecure loan and addition of 10% unsecured loan by AO was baseless hence assessment order turned out to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
Madras HC remands 2018-2019 assessment order, ruling insufficient time given to respond to Rs. 9.5 crore unexplained income show cause notice under Section 69A.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled in ACIT vs Naresh Jain, addressing Section 115BBE, unexplained income, and the benefit of telescoping in tax assessments.
