Corporate Law : Assessees face 78% tax and 6% penalty for unexplained investments or expenditures under Sections 69 to 69C of Income Tax Act if de...
Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Income Tax : Article explains how surrendered income is treated under I.T Act, particularly focusing on applicability of Sections 68 to 69D and...
Income Tax : Discover the tax implications and rates for undisclosed sources of income under Sections 68-69D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn...
Income Tax : Explore the heavy tax implications on taxpayers for unexplained investments and expenditures under Income Tax Act sections 69 to 6...
Income Tax : AO proceeded to finalize the assessment based on available records, as the assessee had still not responded or provided any explan...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that cash received under unregistered will accepted as will furnished by the assessee not established as fabrica...
Goods and Services Tax : An enquiry was initiated by Haryana State Tax Department with regard to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit against assessee-co...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad rules that Section 50C applies to sellers, not buyers, and clarifies the retrospective effect of Section 56(2)(vii)...
Income Tax : The ITAT Jaipur ruled in ACIT vs Naresh Jain, addressing Section 115BBE, unexplained income, and the benefit of telescoping in tax...
AO proceeded to finalize the assessment based on available records, as the assessee had still not responded or provided any explanations regarding the unexplained cash deposits. AO added the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 3,13,34,845/- to the total income.
ITAT Chennai held that cash received under unregistered will accepted as will furnished by the assessee not established as fabricated one by the department and there is no requirement in law to get the will registered.
An enquiry was initiated by Haryana State Tax Department with regard to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit against assessee-company and also by multiple DGGI Zonal Units.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that Section 50C applies to sellers, not buyers, and clarifies the retrospective effect of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on property transactions.
Assessees face 78% tax and 6% penalty for unexplained investments or expenditures under Sections 69 to 69C of Income Tax Act if details are not satisfactorily explained.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled in ACIT vs Naresh Jain, addressing Section 115BBE, unexplained income, and the benefit of telescoping in tax assessments.
ITAT Bangalore held that as per provisions of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, an agriculturist is not required to maintain books of accounts. Further, revenue has failed to establish anything contrary, accordingly, addition made on this count deleted.
Since the addition pertained to the “receipt of money” from the sale of flats by the assessee and these amounts did not represent the actual receipts in the hands of the assessee, they could not be subjected to tax.
ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before CIT(A), to enable the assessee to represent his appeals.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that ex-parte dismissal of appeal on account of non-appearance by CIT(A) without discussing the merits of the case is unsustainable in law. CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeal on merits.
