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 ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra paymen...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that stamp duty valuation could not be blindly adopted where the property was affected by BBMP demolition proceeding...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Rs.6 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the share sale transactions were prope...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that entries found in third-party ERP software during a search cannot alone justify unexplained investment addit...
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.
When assessee failed to file any reliable evidence or documents, which could establish that she was a sub-broker and cash deposited in her bank account belong to her clients, then action of treating the entire cash deposits as per section 69 as unexplained investment of the assessee was held to be fully justified.
Where assessee could not furnish any explanation regarding source of receipt of money, except saying that it was loan borrowed from parties, the addition made by the AO under section 69 was justified.
Hemant Kumar Pradhan Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) Original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was made by the AO by rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee and estimating the income of the assessee at 8% of the gross contract receipt of Rs. 49,10,212/-. It is trite law that once the books of accounts of […]
George Alexander Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) The Assessing Officer in para 6 of the assessment order had catalogued the unexplained deposits in various bank accounts. While working out the unexplained deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee, the Assessing Officer had given due credit to the income declared by the assessee in the return of […]
A discretion has been conferred on the ITO U/s 69 of the Act to treat the source of investment as income of the assessee if the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory. However, the said discretion should be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case. when it is claimed that the assessee could not possibly have any source of income, the addition on his hand is not justified within the parameters of the Income Tax Act.
The presumption is so compelling that comparatively a small amount of investment made by the assessee during the previous year period relevant to the assessment years 1999- 2000 and 2000-01 have grown into a very sizable amount ultimately yielding a fabulous sum of Rs. 1,41,08,484 which was used by the assessee for the purchase of the flat at Colaba.
In order to avoid unnecessary litigation, it is proposed to amend the provisions of the sub-section (2) of section 11 5BBE to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under the sections 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D.
