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 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...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur upheld income additions in Kavita Samtani vs. DCIT due to undisclosed cash investments under Section 69 and questioned...
These appeals are filed by the Revenue and cross objections by assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Mumbai dated 16.06.2016 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2012-13.
As assessee received salary in cash, his claim that investments were made from such salary could not be brushed aside and keeping in view the overall facts and capacity of the assessee, addition under section 69 was deleted.
Simply because the assessee could not produce the dealers, the entire purchases could not be treated as bogus purchases as AO could have made further investigations to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions.
There is a mistake of getting the information through AIR which was collected by the appellant’s AR from bank. The transaction reported in the AIR was wrongly reported by the department. The AO should inform DGIT(System) to verify such information from the department server and correct it in future.
It was explained by the appellant that the money deposited in the bank account represented cash received from elder son, who was tax payer and the withdrawals in the bank account had a a chronologically progressive linkage of events.
Bijoy Shribastab & Anr. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It is not in dispute that the assessee had not maintained books of accounts for his transport business. It is not in dispute that the assessee owns less than 10 vehicles and is accordingly entitled to offer income u/s 44AE of the Act. It is not the […]
The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of matching material for women clothing and she was also running a tailoring centre. For the year under consideration she declared total income of Rs. 1,33,900/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 52,450/-.
Devaram C. Bhavani Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We have given a thoughtful consideration to the notings in the impounded document, viz. Annexure A-2– Page 37 & Page 105 and are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the lower authorities. We find that as against the working of the amount […]
Sub-section (2) of said section provides that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set-off of any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1).
The Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in its recent order said that Investment in Jewellery cannot be treated as Unexplained when it is reflected in the books & the source of Fund is evidenced through Bank A/c.
