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 : ITAT Ahmedabad upheld part of the unexplained investment addition for Rs. 79.35 lakh in Bhavin V. Maniar's case, allowing time for...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on protective basis not justified since assessee established ...
Service Tax : No deduction under the Head “Provident Fund” is permissible in the above provisions and I therefore, hold that the taxable val...
Income Tax : The assessee has not filed any return of income. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was r...
Income Tax : In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the Court concluded that, while the faceless system cen...
Read the detailed analysis of the Jharkhand High Court’s decision upholding income tax additions due to failure in proving the genuineness of creditors providing cash loans.
ITAT Delhi held that “full value of consideration” or “cost of investment” cannot be substituted by the fair market value (FMV), except in the case falling within the purview of 50C and Sec. 56(l)(vi)/(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Mumbai ITAT decision clarifies that no addition under Section 69 I-T Act is justified once the source of investment is proven, setting a precedent.
Delhi High Court sustains anticipatory bail for accused acting under main culprits directions in a significant GST evasion case, setting a legal precedent.
Explore the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Pasari Casting vs. Income Tax Department, addressing a critical tax reassessment issue. A detailed analysis inside.
Read the full text of the judgment/order by Delhi High Court on the Directorate General of GST Intelligence vs Jitender Kumar case involving a Rs 195 Crores GST fraud.
Explore the ITAT Rajkot’s detailed analysis of Vaidya Realities vs PCIT case under Section 263, highlighting the AO’s assessment, PCIT’s concerns, and the final verdict.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee has not discharged its onus to satisfactorily prove the incurring of expenditure for running the alleged Hotel Management Business. Thus, in absence of satisfactory documentary evidence, addition u/s. 68 of entire turnover disclosed as hotel management business sustained.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in PCIT (Central) vs. Sanjay Singhal upholds ITAT’s deletion of addition under Section 69A for AY 2015-16, emphasizing need for incriminating material for valid additions.
ead about the Rajasthan High Court’s decision quashing an income tax notice under Section 148A for being barred by limitation. Case details of Bijendra Singh vs ITO.
