Income Tax : Explore the complex interplay of tradition and tax law surrounding Streedhan (women's jewellery) in India, CBDT guidelines, and co...
Income Tax : Overview of Income Tax Sections 69A, 69B, on unexplained income, investments, and expenditures. Key cases and interpretations incl...
Income Tax : The Sections by which the assessees are suffering too much due to high pitched assessments passed by NFAC are from 68 to 69D and 1...
Income Tax : Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key...
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...
Corporate Law : Details on Indian government's blocking of YouTube channels, citing IT Rules 2021 and Section 69A of IT Act 2000. Learn about reas...
Income Tax : Tribunal also took note of the fact that AO had merely reproduced identical reasons for multiple years without verifying facts or ...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that reopening of assessment is invalid since reasons recorded are vague and scanty and PCIT has granted approva...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is void-ab-initio since income escaped assessment ...
Income Tax : Additions under Section 69A could not be sustained without concrete evidence and due process and AO had not brought any tangible e...
Income Tax : Aggrieved against the directions of CIT(A) to the AO for assessment of gross profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases ...
Tribunal also took note of the fact that AO had merely reproduced identical reasons for multiple years without verifying facts or forming a belief based on individual year-specific material.
ITAT Kolkata held that reopening of assessment is invalid since reasons recorded are vague and scanty and PCIT has granted approval in mechanical manner. Accordingly, reopening of assessment is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is void-ab-initio since income escaped assessment doesn’t exceed Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Accordingly, assessment order passed by AO is quashed.
Additions under Section 69A could not be sustained without concrete evidence and due process and AO had not brought any tangible evidence to prove the alleged cash loan.
Aggrieved against the directions of CIT(A) to the AO for assessment of gross profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.
To ensure fairness, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. This decision was made contingent upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000 to the Income Tax Department within one month and providing proof of payment.
ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing the AO an opportunity under Rule 46A(3) to examine the new evidence submitted by the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable as assessment made by AO after proper verification of evidences. Further, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Bengaluru partly allows assessee’s appeals for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13, deleting addition under section 69A for recorded loan repayments.
ITAT concluded that merely a time gap between withdrawal and deposit does not warrant an addition under Section 69, especially when the revenue could not establish any other use of the withdrawn funds.
