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...
Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that when cash is sourced out of recorded debtors, provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be ...
Income Tax : M/s. GRR Holdings is a firm was incorporated on 31.01.2014 with two partners Shri Gaddam Shyam Prasad Reddy & Shri Syed Fayaz Moha...
Income Tax : ITAT Lucknow held that addition by calculating sales on hypothetical basis and completely ignoring various evidences submitted dur...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money not legally sustainable since na...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 towards unexplained cash made by the AO without bringing any concrete evidence on ...
Even after the submission CIT (A) ignored the fact and upheld the addition amounting to Rs. 32,00,000/- not at Rs. 18,50,000/- which was result of rectification order passed by the AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that since the assessee, being an agriculturist was not well versed with tax proceedings, was unable to file required documents against addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act before AO.
Since the reason for the delay seemed genuine, it was condoned. It was held that assessee had not given the explanation as to why assessee did not appear before AO and file the details of source of the deposits within the stipulated time.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delay of 244 days in filing of an appeal caused due to genuine hardship faced by the assessee is condonable. Accordingly, delay condoned due to bona fide reason being demonstrated.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that passing of order by CIT(A) without taking into account the submission made by the assessee is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, matter remitted back to the file of CIT(A).
ITAT Kolkata held that in course of reassessment, AO concludes that no additions or modifications are warranted under these heads, it would not be entitled to make any additions in respect of other items forming part of original return.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period as stipulated under section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act is not permissible. Accordingly, notice issued beyond time limit set aside.
AO observed that Wealth Tax Act was already abolished from financial year 2015-16, and the details of the assets were now required to be filed in the Income-tax Return for the assessment year.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance and procedural delay. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) set aside and matter remitted back to CIT(A).
It was felt that the minute details of matching of accounts, working out the exact quantum of turnover from the bank accounts and matching of vouchers with expenses claimed could not be done by this Bench of ITAT.
