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 : Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in DCIT vs. Dilip B. Jiwrajka covering appeals against additions of unexplained income...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules Section 56(2)(vii) inapplicable to non-residents, deleting Rs. 9.31 Cr addition for APL Logistics Vascor Automoti...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Delhi order in Durga Fire Work Vs ITO case for AY 2017-18. Learn why Delhi ITAT ruled cash deposits...
Income Tax : Explore the Delhi High Court's judgment on ITSC's conclusive nature for AY, assessing reassessment under Section 148 of the Income...
Income Tax : Understand Parmod Singla Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) case on excess stock surrendered during survey and its tax implications under ...
Analysis of Satbir Mahato Vs PCIT case by Kolkata ITAT, highlighting the dispute over Section 263 jurisdiction due to plausible views of AO.
Mool Chand Aggarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) CIT(A) cannot disbelieve cash book only on the ground that ‘generally individuals do not maintain cash book and it is not mandatory to maintain cash book for the individual’.
ITAT Delhi in Preeti Bhardwaj Vs ITO held that AO cannot treat cash deposits as unexplained when assessee has provided the source of cash deposits being cash withdrawals without bringing adverse material.
Supreme Court held that provisions of section 71 of the Customs Act doesn’t apply when goods were not warehoused inside the notified public bonded warehouse but were unloaded outside the notified area but within factory premises and kept under a shed on permission granted by Superintended.
ITAT Guwahati held that the exemption of 10(26) of the Income Tax Act is available to the individual members of the Scheduled Tribe and the said benefit cannot be extended to a partnership firm.
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in the case of Vivekkumar S Bhavsar vs ITO, where the matter was remanded back to the AO due to lack of cooperation from the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue’s appeal, ruling photocopy of sale agreement insufficient evidence for income addition. Analysis & judgment explained.
ITAT Kolkata scrutinized the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and observed that the AO had not considered the stamp duty valuation of the property on the date of agreement, which was in 2015. As per the proviso to the section, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement should have been taken into account.
ITAT Guwahati held that the exemption of 10(26) of the Income Tax Act is available to the individual members of the Scheduled Tribe and that this benefit cannot be extended to a firm which has been recognized as a separate assessable person under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal recognized the mandate under section 250(6), requiring the appellate authority to state points in dispute and provide reasons for its decision. However, the Commissioner’s order lacked adherence to these requirements, rendering it unsustainable.
