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 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 […]
Mohamed Mohideen Ayesha Nasreen Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT held that it could be seen that assessee is living with her husband and three children (Two daughters and one son) in USA. She has got married in the year 2003. In this letter, the assessee has submitted that approx. 1201 grams of jewellery belong to […]
A. Manoharan Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT observe that the AO has made the addition under Section 69 of the Act of Rs.12,75,802/- for want of proper explanation of cash deposited during demonetisation period. The assessee tried to justify the same by submitted that the assessee had withdrawn cash from his Corporation Bank and Indian […]
Dealers of metals/stones must streamline inventory valuation & records to avoid implications under undisclosed income scheme. Learn about recent tax amendments.
Batuk Vithalabhai Donga Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) If addition under section 80U is not made under section 68 or 69, then tax cannot be imposed under section 115BBE Assessee has not challenged the additions made by the AO under section 80U and 80G of the Act, but has only challenged the computation of tax liability […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment unsustainable as the investment is out of the NRI Repatriation funds came outside India and which is not taxable in India.
Smt. Sonal Kumari Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in adding the cash deposited during demonetization period in assessee’s savings bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank between 15.11.2016 to 05.12.2016 amounting to Rs.7.68 lakhs. The […]
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act based on tally data having various inherent discrepancy is unsustainable as AO failed to verify or ask the assessee to reconcile the same from actual books of accounts or physical stocks.
