Income Tax : Discover the tax implications and rates for undisclosed sources of income under Sections 68-69D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn...
Income Tax : Explore the intricacies of gold taxation in India, covering physical gold, paper gold, gold derivatives, inheritance tax, and comp...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of demonetization on cash deposits in India and the key legal insights from Section 69A vs. Section 44AD cases....
Income Tax : Explore sections 68 to 69D of Income Tax Act 1961, covering unexplained cash credits, investments, and more. Learn about legal pro...
Income Tax : Explore the differences between income tax Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C in India, their taxability, and implications. Understand...
Income Tax : ITAT Indore held that rejection of appeal by CIT(A) on the footing of non-payment of advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b) ...
Income Tax : Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from p...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 2...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune rules in favor of Ashok Ravsaheb Tambe, deleting addition of cash deposits during demonetization, explained as proceeds ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune remands the case of Suhas Maruti Dhankude for re-adjudication due to non-adjudication of jurisdictional grounds and fail...
Read the full text of the ITAT Chennai order in the case of Edward Sam Vs ITO. Penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) are analyzed in light of quantum additions made using peak credit theory
Analysis of the recent ITAT ruling on Pawan Satyanarain Jalan Vs Assessing Officer Central where the penalty under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act was deleted.
In the case of Sandeep Auraneebadkar vs. ITO, the ITAT Hyderabad partially deleted an addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act due to failure to explain credit card payments with supporting evidence.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act sustained as cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be said to be cash gifts received during occasion of marriage in December 2015.
Explore the PCIT Vs Goutam Chakraborty case where Calcutta High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, upholding the deletion of additions under section 69A for seized gold.
The ITAT Chandigarh directs reassessment in a case where the appellant, Puran Singh, was unaware of a notice due to its delivery on his counsel’s e-mail ID, leading to the inability to provide explanations on cash deposits.
ITAT Pune held that that the amount surrendered under unrecorded stock has to be brought to tax under the head “business income” and no provision u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act is attracted.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act untenable as cash deposited during the demonetization period duly explained.
In the case of Rammohan Kordale vs ACIT, ITAT Bangalore held that money transferred between assessee’s joint bank accounts cannot be classified as unexplained money under Section 69A of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that more specific plea and explanation ought to be given by an assessee for discharging burden u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act to explain jewelry beyond that mentioned in Wealth Tax Return.
