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...
ITAT Bangalore deleted addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money after examining the cash withdrawn and cash deposit amounts, since cash withdrawn is more than cash deposit.
ITAT Chennai held that cash received under unregistered will accepted as will furnished by the assessee not established as fabricated one by the department and there is no requirement in law to get the will registered.
ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside an order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act after a notice was sent to the wrong address. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Reassessment order was quashed on cash deposits as AO did not possess any credible information to form a belief that income had escaped assessment and there was non-application of mind for reopening the matter.
ITAT Bangalore in the case of cash deposit during demonetization period directed assessee to file KYC of the depositors and accordingly directed AO to verify the same and allow if found in order.
Madras High Court held that there cannot be any excuse for not filing the counter affidavits in time. Thus, Standing Counsel directed to be prompt in filing the counter affidavits and make themselves ready to argue the cases without seeking more adjournments.
Assessees face 78% tax and 6% penalty for unexplained investments or expenditures under Sections 69 to 69C of Income Tax Act if details are not satisfactorily explained.
CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
Madras HC remands 2018-2019 assessment order, ruling insufficient time given to respond to Rs. 9.5 crore unexplained income show cause notice under Section 69A.
