Corporate Law : Assessees face 78% tax and 6% penalty for unexplained investments or expenditures under Sections 69 to 69C of Income Tax Act if de...
Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Income Tax : Article explains how surrendered income is treated under I.T Act, particularly focusing on applicability of Sections 68 to 69D and...
Income Tax : Discover the tax implications and rates for undisclosed sources of income under Sections 68-69D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn...
Income Tax : Explore the heavy tax implications on taxpayers for unexplained investments and expenditures under Income Tax Act sections 69 to 6...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad upheld part of the unexplained investment addition for Rs. 79.35 lakh in Bhavin V. Maniar's case, allowing time for...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on protective basis not justified since assessee established ...
Service Tax : No deduction under the Head “Provident Fund” is permissible in the above provisions and I therefore, hold that the taxable val...
Income Tax : The assessee has not filed any return of income. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was r...
Income Tax : In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the Court concluded that, while the faceless system cen...
ITAT Delhi in Preeti Bhardwaj Vs ITO held that AO cannot treat cash deposits as unexplained when assessee has provided the source of cash deposits being cash withdrawals without bringing adverse material.
Supreme Court held that provisions of section 71 of the Customs Act doesn’t apply when goods were not warehoused inside the notified public bonded warehouse but were unloaded outside the notified area but within factory premises and kept under a shed on permission granted by Superintended.
ITAT Guwahati held that the exemption of 10(26) of the Income Tax Act is available to the individual members of the Scheduled Tribe and the said benefit cannot be extended to a partnership firm.
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in the case of Vivekkumar S Bhavsar vs ITO, where the matter was remanded back to the AO due to lack of cooperation from the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue’s appeal, ruling photocopy of sale agreement insufficient evidence for income addition. Analysis & judgment explained.
ITAT Kolkata scrutinized the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and observed that the AO had not considered the stamp duty valuation of the property on the date of agreement, which was in 2015. As per the proviso to the section, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement should have been taken into account.
ITAT Guwahati held that the exemption of 10(26) of the Income Tax Act is available to the individual members of the Scheduled Tribe and that this benefit cannot be extended to a firm which has been recognized as a separate assessable person under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal recognized the mandate under section 250(6), requiring the appellate authority to state points in dispute and provide reasons for its decision. However, the Commissioner’s order lacked adherence to these requirements, rendering it unsustainable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that excess stock found during the course of survey cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69B of the Income Tax Act as the same is undeclared business income and not unexplained investment.
Read the ITAT Delhi’s decision in Mudita Chaturvedi Vs ACIT case, where the addition of jewellery under section 69 is deleted, citing it as Stri Dhan from parents.
