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 : Explore sections 68 to 69D of Income Tax Act 1961, covering unexplained cash credits, investments, and more. Learn about legal pro...
Company Law : Unlock the procedural intricacies of share buybacks in private/unlisted companies under the Companies Act, 2013. Explore the signi...
Income Tax : Explore the differences between income tax Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C in India, their taxability, and implications. Understand...
Income Tax : Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from p...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 2...
Income Tax : Punjab & Haryana HC upholds Principal Commissioner’s revision under Section 263. Assessing Officer’s wrong Section 44ADA asses...
Income Tax : Certain expenses related to cost of improvement of land put forward by assessee were disallowed noting lack of proper and sufficie...
Income Tax : Notice under section 148 was issued upon assessee by AO for reassessing the cash deposit as undisclosed income, following approval...
ITAT Indore held that the deeming fiction created in section 50C cannot be extended to the provision of section 69 or 69B or any other of the Act in the case of purchaser to make the purchaser liable for tax.
ITAT Chandigarh set aside the addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act to the file of AO to test the enforceability of agreement to sell as per relevant statue vis-à-vis fresh affidavit.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once additional income offered during survey was simply accepted and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without invoking provisions of section 115BBE. Then, provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked via rectification as per section 154.
Delve into the intricacies of the case Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), analyzing the discrepancy between Section 68 and Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Surat held that provision of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act as amended vide Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill 2016 which is effective from 01.04.2017 cannot be applied to search conducted prior to the effective date.
ITAT Surat held that addition as unexplained investment in the hands of one of the co-owner unsustainable as department didn’t made proportionate addition in the hands of other co-owners.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act sustained as no corroborative evidence produced to prove the source for the cash deposits during demonetization period.
ITAT Chennai held that addition u/s 69 towards unexplained money sustained on failure to explain the source of the cash deposits with necessary evidences.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the deposit insurance activity of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai (DICGC) falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under “General Insurance Business”.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on unaccounted, undisclosed income on the basis of the seized loose papers sustained as assessee failed to discharge his onus by contradicting the facts found during search proceedings.
