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 Ahmedabad dismisses Somnath Kelavni Mandal's income tax appeal due to continuous absence in proceedings. Case pertains to une...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai deletes additions under Section 69A for cash deposits made during demonetization by P. Tamilmani. Case highlights pro...
Income Tax : Additional income offered by assessee on account of cash and excess stock is liable to be taxed as business income and not unexpla...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules bad debt recovery as business income, deleting Rs. 1 crore addition under Section 69A. Read full details on the...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that loose sheets picked u/s 132, falls within definition of ‘document’ mentioned in section 132(4) and theref...
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.
ITAT Mumbai held that matter regarding addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act remanded back for fresh consideration directing appellant to file all documents/ details and supporting evidence explaining source of cash deposits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on technical/ procedural aspect merely because the appeal was filed manually instead of e-filing unjustified as assessee was not given an opportunity to cure the defect. Accordingly, appeal restored back.
Assessee had deposited Rs.2,25,00,000/- during the demonetization period in the bank account and explained the reason of the cash deposit, hence he had discharged the onus and prove the genuineness of the transaction.
