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...
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.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ITO vs. M/s Bharat Agro Industries that section 69 comes into operation only if investments are not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee which is not the case looking to the facts of the assessee wherein the bank balances are shown in the audited balance sheet
