Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : A doctrinal analysis of unexplained cash credits, investments, and expenditure under Sections 68–69D. Explains burden of proof a...
Income Tax : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice...
Income Tax : The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material directly connecting the assessee to alleged ca...
Income Tax : The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. I...
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.
Nagappan Arunachalam Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The ld. CIT(A) has sustained an addition u/s 69A equal to 50% of the peak balance in HSBC accounts jointly held with the spouse. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant was not able to rebut the issues raised by the AO during remand proceedings as the […]
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act untenable as AO failed to conduct any investigation or enquiry in respect of information submitted by the assessee. AO also failed to conduct independent investigation and simply relied on third party statements and facts.
Pratap Joisher Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that assessment framed on the basis of ‘base note’ without preferring to collect evidence based on ‘consent waiver form’ is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Facts-On receiving information by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) from French Authority under Article 28 of the […]
Section 68 cannot be invoked if Assessee not required to maintain books of account. Section 115BBE comes into operation only in case of income referred in Section 68/69/69A/69B/69C and 69D
Explore the tax implications of undisclosed income from Section 68 to Section 69D. Learn about tax rates, explanations, and conditions to avoid penalties. A comprehensive guide for students.
ITAT Chandigarh held that the income so surrendered by way of account receivables cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions u/s 69 r/w section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
DCIT Vs Shri Krishna Kumar Verma (ITAT Indore) Sections 68,69,69A,69B,69C and 69D may be called as Section 68 & 69 Family. However, they differ in as far as Burden of Proof is concerned. In sec 68, the onus is wholly upon the Assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under […]
Pawan Raj Goyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that addition of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act via rectification order passed under section 154 stating there was mistake apparent from record is based on surmises and conjectures and hence unsustainable. Facts- Assessee has preferred the present appeal contending that […]
