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...
Explore the verdict of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Hemavathi Ramesh Vs ITO, where cash deposits from earlier deposits were deemed taxable. Delve into the legal nuances and implications of the judgement.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 blocking the tweets/accounts for an indefinite period are unassailable on the doctrine of proportionality.
ITAT Dehradun held that addition of cash deposits made during the demonetization period unsustained as predominant source of income was only agricultural income and no other source of income is brought on record by AO.
The Hon’ble Tribunal while allowing Revenue Appeal have held that when the amounts received in cash against the sale of flats which have not been recorded in the books of account of the assessee at the time of search and seizure operation and subsequently recorded in the books as advance from customers is nothing but an eye wash to supplement the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash receipts. Therefore the addition made by the AO deserves to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.
In a recent case, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable when the source of income is disclosed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as present case doesn’t involve invocation of any of the sections i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as cash proceeds already reflected in Profit & Loss account, hence addition u/s 68 will amount to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts and due explanation with regard to source of loan transaction is provided, addition u/s 69A towards unexplained money unsustainable.
ITAT Amritsar held that revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as AO accepted the deal of sale of agriculture land with a conscious and independent application of mind.
In Ram Kishan Vs ITO case, ITAT Delhi ruled that no addition u/s 69A of Income Tax Act when income source was appropriately explained during assessment.
