Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reliance on third-party statements without granting effective cross-examination amounted to a violation of ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
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 Bangalore remanded a Section 69A addition after holding that an APMC commission agent's entire sale proceeds could not be tre...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore deleted the Section 69A addition after holding that member details established the source of cash deposits made dur...
Income Tax : ITAT held that negative cash balances do not automatically establish undisclosed income and upheld addition only to the peak negat...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : ITAT Allahabad held that estimating gross profit solely on the basis of the subsequent years GP rate is not justified after reject...
Income Tax : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
PCIT Vs Shitalben Saurabh Vora (Gujarat High Court) The issue in the present case relates whether the amount deposited by the assessee in the form of cash/cheques represents the income of the assessee. Admittedly, there was huge deposit of cash/cheques in the bank account of the assessee. But on perusal of the bank statement, it […]
Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Asking the assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the expenditure to the extent of 92% of gross receipts, would also defeat the purpose of presumptive taxation as provided under section 44AD of the Act or other such provision. Since the scheme of presumptive taxation […]
Pipush kumar O Desai Vs CIT (Gujarat High Court) Upon perusal of the relevant record, copies of which have been annexed to the paper book supplied to this court, it is very clear that the assessee had given sufficient details with regard to the sources from which he had purchased the jewellery in question. Upon […]
Comparison between section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B and section 69C: -So far as section 68 is concerned, the onus is wholly upon the Assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, the words used show that before any of these sections are invoked, the condition precedent as to existence of investment, expenditure, etc. must be conclusively established by material on record/ evidence.
Background To begin with, the unexplained income simply means any income for which assessee do not have valid explanation about the nature and / or source or the assessing officer is not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. Under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) broadly, the term ‘unexplained income’ is […]
ITAT Delhi ruling on cash deposit issue. Assessing Section 69A addition to the assessee’s income. Understanding the ITAT judgment and its impact.
The Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2017-18 were selected for scrutiny via e-proceedings for those Assessees, who have deposited more than Rs. 2 Lakhs in cash in Banks after 8th November 2016, being the date on which Demonetization was announced by our honourable Prime Minister of India. Cash Books, Sales Invoices, Copies of […]
A large number of assessments pertaining to cash deposited in banks during demonetization period are pending. The article analysis relevant sections of I.T. Act as well as various legal issues to assist assessing officers in passing error free sustainable assessment orders.
Post-demonetization in FY 2016–17, there has been large scale cash deposits in bank accounts, out of which a substantial portion could be unexplained u/s 69A. Such income in nature of Ss. 68 to 69D has been made liable for being taxed at higher rate @ 60% u/s 115BBE from AY 2017–18, irrespective of whether such unexplained income is suo moto offered by an assessee as income in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) or in response to notice u/s 142(1)/ 148/ 153A/ 153C, etc.
Assessee was not entitled to claim long term capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38) and the same was deemed to be income under section 69A as it was revealed that purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions by assessee to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt long term capital gain by well organised network of entry providers with the sole motive to sell such entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income for a consideration or commission.
