Income Tax : Explains the centralization of digital platforms, surveillance powers, and opaque governance. Key takeaway: citizens have limited ...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Goods and Services Tax : GST arrest power under Section 69 is limited to grave offenses (evasion > ₹2 crore, or repeat fraud), requiring reasons to belie...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
Income Tax : A Comprehensive Analysis of Undisclosed Incomes under Sections 68 to 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Taxation of these Incomes Un...
Income Tax : ITAT upheld deletion of ₹3.31 crore addition under Section 69, noting full disclosure of foreign assets and sufficient income. R...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 additions as the Revenue relied only on uncorroborated statements and pen-drive data from third par...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal withou...
Income Tax : ITAT Agra held that additional evidence proving the land’s distance from municipal limits is crucial for reassessment under Sect...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court ruled that prosecution under Income Tax Act Sections 276C and 278E can proceed when evaded tax exceeds Rs.25 cror...
M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Coming to the question regarding action of the learned CIT (Appeals) to treat the reference u/s 142 for the purpose of Section 69B, I find merit into the contention of the assessee that there is no power conferred upon the learned CIT(Appeals) to assess a […]
ITO Vs Sandeep S. Dagaria (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT notices that Assessing Officer has merely proceeded to make addition of Rs.7,00,000/- unsecured loans merely because the Rajat Group of Companies involved in the transaction of bogus purchases and rejected the evidences submitted before him i.e. assessee has submitted the confirmation balance and the transactions were only […]
Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Counsel for assessee contended that AO has wrongly made addition of the cash deposit in the bank account u/s 69 of the Act. We do not agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee because assessee made a cash deposit of the impugned amount […]
ITO Vs Rajeev Suresh Ghai (ITAT Mumbai) It is always useful to bear in mind the fact that, on the first principles, the trigger for taxation of an income in a source jurisdiction is either the economic activity or the linkage of an income with that jurisdiction, and that in the absence of such a […]
United Waterproofing Corporation Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We note that Ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the addition on account of bogus purchases to 100% of the bogus purchases as against 12.5% applied by the AO. The only reason given by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and […]
Addition on account of investment made from undisclosed sources was deleted as as all transactions were made through banking channels and AO had made the addition in question on assumption and presumption basis.
Once the transaction is found to be recorded in the regular books of account, provisions of section 69 do not apply and the CIT(A) had, therefore, rightly deleted the addition which calls for no interference.
As per section 68 of the Income Tax Act, any sum found credited in the books of a taxpayer, for which he does not explain the nature and source or the explanation provided by him is not satisfactory by the Assessing Officer is termed as ‘Cash Credit‘. Other provisions to be kept in mind with […]
Jaidayal Prannath Kapur Vs CIT (Madras High Court) The assessment for the Assessment Year under consideration, AY 2002-03, was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. From the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order, dated 19.12.2007, we find that, initially, the assessee did not extend full cooperation […]
ACIT Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (HUF) (ITAT Delhi) > HELD THAT:- In the present assessee’s case, search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.10.2009 in the premises of Mr. Abhinav Arora and Mrs. Ranju Arora. Consequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act […]
