Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
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 : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a registered sale deed without corroborative evidence is not incriminating material and cannot support additions in...
Income Tax : ITAT held that multiplying a seized figure without supporting evidence was unjustified and restricted the Section 69 addition to t...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that proceedings initiated under the old Section 153C framework after the Finance Act, 2021 amendments were leg...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that omission to mention the exact charging provision did not vitiate the assessment where unexplained cash and bull...
ITAT Surat held that addition as unexplained investment in the hands of one of the co-owner unsustainable as department didn’t made proportionate addition in the hands of other co-owners.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act sustained as no corroborative evidence produced to prove the source for the cash deposits during demonetization period.
ITAT Chennai held that addition u/s 69 towards unexplained money sustained on failure to explain the source of the cash deposits with necessary evidences.
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.
