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 Cochin remands case after CIT(A) dismisses appeal without considering additional evidence under Rule 46A in an unexplained mo...
Income Tax : ITAT Cochin remanded Baiju Kabeer’s case to CIT(A) for reassessment, citing lack of opportunity to explain cash deposits. Review...
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...
Held that the cash deposits are made out of the sale proceeds of the assessee and in my opinion the assessee has properly explained the source of the cash deposits along with documentary evidence.
ITAT Jaipur held that provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in statement of profit & loss account.
The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons of cash deposit during the demonetization. During assessment, AO noted that assessee have made cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/- in his bank account.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of cash deposit during demonetization confirmed by both AO and CIT(A) by passing ex-parte order. However, majority of cash deposits are prior to demonetization period. Hence, matter remanded back for fresh verification.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal and passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A) in absence of any response on behalf of the assessee untenable since CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merits.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remanded the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration since CIT(A) passed ex-parte order as there was on response on behalf of the assessee.
ITAT Surat condoned the delay of 159 days in filing of an appeal as delay in filing appeal is not intentional nor deliberate and assessee was prevented by sufficient reason for not filing an appeal on time.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act untenable since AO didn’t record any satisfaction to the effect that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act are violated.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act made without proper examination of the books of account and relevant financial records unjustified. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored back.
Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key cases provide insights into tax disputes.
