Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
Income Tax : A Comprehensive Analysis of Undisclosed Incomes under Sections 68 to 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Taxation of these Incomes Un...
Income Tax : Understand income tax rules for cash deposits in businesses using presumptive taxation (Sec 44AD, 44AE). Learn about unexplained c...
Income Tax : Explore the complex interplay of tradition and tax law surrounding Streedhan (women's jewellery) in India, CBDT guidelines, and co...
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 : ITAT ruled that ₹10 lakh deposit in demonetisation period, backed by gifts, savings, and sale of gold, cannot be treated as unex...
Income Tax : The appellate authority held that additions cannot be sustained solely on external information without independent verification. B...
Income Tax : The appellate authority held that unexplained cash additions under Section 69A require evidence, not mere suspicion. Cash from pro...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties a...
Income Tax : The Tribunal reduced unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs.11.59 lakh to Rs.2.59 lakh, noting both the taxpayer and the depart...
ITAT ruled that ₹10 lakh deposit in demonetisation period, backed by gifts, savings, and sale of gold, cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69A.
The appellate authority held that additions cannot be sustained solely on external information without independent verification. Bogus purchase claims under Section 69A were deleted.
The appellate authority held that unexplained cash additions under Section 69A require evidence, not mere suspicion. Cash from property sale deposited after ten months was justified and deletion allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transaction duly proved. Accordingly, CIT(A) order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal reduced unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs.11.59 lakh to Rs.2.59 lakh, noting both the taxpayer and the department failed to fully substantiate their claims during the demonetization scrutiny.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment in property under Section 69A. The tribunal noted that being an NRI, the assessee could not access required documents in time, warranting reconsideration by the AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad remitted the case back to the AO after CIT(A) upheld an addition of ₹2.47 crore as unexplained share capital. The assessee had provided detailed bank records, personal books, and PAN/ITR proofs which were ignored, violating principles of natural justice.
The ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material found during search and set aside assessments for AYs 2013–14 and 2014–15.
ITAT Chandigarh restricted the unexplained cash addition to ₹2.5 lakh, deleting ₹10 lakh in Sher Singh vs ITO for AY 2017–18, citing partial explanation from agricultural and milk income.
ITAT held that no addition under Section 69A was justified when the jewellery found during search was less than the amount already declared in wealth tax returns. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
