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...
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 evidence. The AO failed to […]
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 […]
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.
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 strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect.
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 legal position by CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, dated 2-11-2016.
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?
The issue under consideration is whether claim to purchase of goods by the assessee could be dealt with u/s 68 of the Income Tax as a cash credit, by placing burden upon the assessee to explain that the purchase price does not represent his income from the disclosed sources?
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
