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 ...
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the same was filed belatedly not justified as CIT(A) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee so as to the grounds for condonation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards entire cash deposits during demonetization period by passing ex-parte order due to non-compliance by assessee without examining on merits unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO for fresh examination.
Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.35,13,000/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 36,48,000/- and credit entries of Rs. 21,93,269/-. AO observed that inspite of repeated reminders, assessee failed to submit the reply.
ITAT Delhi orders fresh review of Shiv Kumar’s ₹10.3 lakh deposit case after original appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with advance tax conditions.
ITAT Nagpur held that the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money is liable to be quashed since the nature and source of deposit is clearly established.
ITAT Ahmedabad restored the matter back to the file of CIT(A) after imposing cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for negligence in diligently prosecuting the appeal before CIT(A). It is directed that amount is to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act deleted as the source for capital investment properly explained by the assessee. Accordingly, addition deleted.
On verification of the bank account copies and the other material available before him, AO noticed that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 24,31,000/- by way of Specified Bank Notes [“SBNs”].
ITAT Ahmedabad held that dismissal of appeal due to non-prosecution without adjudicating the issue on merits deprives the assessee of fair opportunity of being heard hence violating the principles of natural justice.
