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 held that addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment unsustainable since assessee had ex...
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...
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.
Since the penalty was reduced from 300% to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 279(1A) of Income Tax.
Explore the heavy tax implications on taxpayers for unexplained investments and expenditures under Income Tax Act sections 69 to 69C. Learn about penalties and consequences.
Assessee-individual was carrying out various types of business including property development, liquor shop, medicine shop and rental income. The return was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1).
Addition made under Section 69 on account of the difference in excess stock of 22 Kt Gold and Polki Jewellery was not justified as the total weight of items of 22KT Gold jewelry and 22KT Gold Polki jewelry was 36,943 gms, and as per the estimated value, the difference was merely 113.50 gms, which was 0.32%.
Addition under section 69A on account of actual cash arranged/paid by assessee to HKA was available with the assessee was not justified as “ownership” of money had not been recorded in the books of account and AO had made only presumption that the said cash was ‘available with the assessee’ without bringing on record any material in support thereof.
Kerala High Court held that bail application of petitioner involved in tax evasion of more than Rs. 6.5 crores on allegation of supply of goods without issuance of invoice rejected as such serious allegations needs thorough investigation.
ITAT Kolkata held that education cess is not allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Explore the ITAT Mumbai order in the Devang Jitendra Mashru vs ITO case for AY 2010-11. Uncover the addition under section 69 and the final opportunity granted due to transaction information absence.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment unsustainable as nature and source of the investment duly explained.
