Section 69

Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C of Income Tax Act, 1961

Income Tax - Comparison between section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B and section 69C: -So far as section 68 is concerned, the onus is wholly upon the Assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, the words used show that before any of these sections are invoked, the condition preceden...

Read More

Taxation of Unexplained Incomes

Income Tax - Background To begin with, the unexplained income simply means any income for which assessee do not have valid explanation about the nature and / or source or the assessing officer is not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. Under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) broadly, the term ‘unexplained incomeâ€...

Read More

Theory of telescoping in determining taxability of undisclosed income

Income Tax - This article deals with the theory of telescoping as applied in the Income-tax Law, the manner of its application and as to how and under what circumstances the benefit of telescoping could be claimed / availed by an assessee. Though the said theory has general applicability across the taxability of a wide range of items, […]...

Read More

Budget 2018 Rationalises provisions of section 115BBE

Income Tax - Sub-section (2) of said section provides that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set-off of any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1)....

Read More

No Set off of losses against deemed undisclosed income

Income Tax - In order to avoid unnecessary litigation, it is proposed to amend the provisions of the sub-section (2) of section 11 5BBE to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under the sections 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D....

Read More
Sorry No Post Found

AO cannot treat LTCG as Bogus merely on SEBI investigation report

M. Kiran Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) - Kiran Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The AO disallowed the exemption claimed u/s.10(38) solely based on the investigation report by SEBI pertaining to certain cases based from Kolkatta wherein share prices rigged substantially over a period of time. Merely on suspicion and surmises, this disallowance ...

Read More

Addition justified for unexplained deposit into bank account

Karan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) - Karan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee has explained that Rs.92,54,462 is out of previous withdrawals and sale of garments and pleaded that it is to be excluded from the taxation. The assessee has not furnished any evidence to establish the nexus between the earlier withdrawals and deposi...

Read More

Undisclosed Business Income not taxable under Section 115BBE r.w. Section 68 & 69

Shri Bhuwan Goyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) - Shri Bhuwan Goyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Landmark Chandigarh ITAT order on Section 115BBE on  investment made out of undisclosed business income held not to fall in Section 69 & 115BBE (AY 17-18). In the present case it is not in dispute that the assessee surrenderd the income of Rs. 3.64 Cr...

Read More

Section 10AA deduction allowed on Profit enhanced due to addition for unverifiable purchases

Amrapali Exports Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) - Expenditure to the extent of 25% of purchases held as non-genuine and disallowed by the AO related to the same business activity of manufacture and export in respect of which assessee was held eligible for deduction under section 10AA. Therefore, deduction under section 10AA was to be allowed on the...

Read More

Penny Stocks – No addition on mere surmises, suspicion & conjectures

Nishant kantilal Patel  Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) - In the absence of any link between the assessee and the alleged admissions of the directors and brokers, human probability is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the department’s conjectures. No addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. The burden of pro...

Read More
Sorry No Post Found

Recent Posts in "Section 69"

AO cannot treat LTCG as Bogus merely on SEBI investigation report

M. Kiran Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)

Kiran Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The AO disallowed the exemption claimed u/s.10(38) solely based on the investigation report by SEBI pertaining to certain cases based from Kolkatta wherein share prices rigged substantially over a period of time. Merely on suspicion and surmises, this disallowance was made without any corroborative evide...

Read More

Addition justified for unexplained deposit into bank account

Karan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

Karan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee has explained that Rs.92,54,462 is out of previous withdrawals and sale of garments and pleaded that it is to be excluded from the taxation. The assessee has not furnished any evidence to establish the nexus between the earlier withdrawals and deposits into various bank accounts. In such [...

Read More

Undisclosed Business Income not taxable under Section 115BBE r.w. Section 68 & 69

Shri Bhuwan Goyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)

Shri Bhuwan Goyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Landmark Chandigarh ITAT order on Section 115BBE on  investment made out of undisclosed business income held not to fall in Section 69 & 115BBE (AY 17-18). In the present case it is not in dispute that the assessee surrenderd the income of Rs. 3.64 Crores in the statement […]...

Read More

Section 10AA deduction allowed on Profit enhanced due to addition for unverifiable purchases

Amrapali Exports Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Expenditure to the extent of 25% of purchases held as non-genuine and disallowed by the AO related to the same business activity of manufacture and export in respect of which assessee was held eligible for deduction under section 10AA. Therefore, deduction under section 10AA was to be allowed on the enhanced profits in light of accepted l...

Read More

Penny Stocks – No addition on mere surmises, suspicion & conjectures

Nishant kantilal Patel  Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)

In the absence of any link between the assessee and the alleged admissions of the directors and brokers, human probability is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the department’s conjectures. No addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be...

Read More

Cash found short cannot be treated as income of assessee

A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)

A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) The issue before us relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found short with the assessee. Cash short, at the most represents expenses / outgoings out of cash available with the assessee not accounted for in the books of the […]...

Read More

Section 69: Entire purchases cannot be added as bogus

ITO Vs Abhay Kantilal Shah (ITAT Mumbai)

ITO Vs Abhay Kantilal Shah (ITAT Mumbai) In instant case, as mentioned earlier, the assessee has filed before the AO copies of (i) bank statements for the financial year 2010­11, evidencing the payments made to these parties; (ii) ledger account of all the parties; (iii) purchase invoices from these parties and (iv) sale invoices as [&he...

Read More

AO cannot invoke Section 68 merely for Unsatisfactory Explanation from Assessee

Ashish Sumatibhai Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmadabad)

Assessing Officer is not obliged to invoke Section 68/s.69 of the Act in every case where the explanation offered is found to be ‘unsatisfactory’ in the opinion of the Assessing Officer....

Read More

ITAT Restricts addition for Bogus Bills at 5% of bogus purchases

Suresh Mehta HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in confirming the addition made by AO for non-genuine and bogus purchases by applying profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases?...

Read More

Section 68 Addition not Justified for Unexplained Deposit in Bank Account

Dirisala Bala Murali Vs ITO ( ITAT Visakhapatnam)

The issue under consideration is whether the AO is justified in making addition u/s 68 towards alleged unexplained deposit in the bank account in as much as a bank account is not a book of account maintained by the appellant?...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,373)
Company Law (7,208)
Custom Duty (8,440)
DGFT (4,522)
Excise Duty (4,473)
Fema / RBI (4,643)
Finance (4,917)
Income Tax (36,770)
SEBI (3,934)
Service Tax (3,706)

Search Posts by Date

May 2021
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31