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 Chennai held that when cash is sourced out of recorded debtors, provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be ...
Income Tax : M/s. GRR Holdings is a firm was incorporated on 31.01.2014 with two partners Shri Gaddam Shyam Prasad Reddy & Shri Syed Fayaz Moha...
Income Tax : ITAT Lucknow held that addition by calculating sales on hypothetical basis and completely ignoring various evidences submitted dur...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money not legally sustainable since na...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 towards unexplained cash made by the AO without bringing any concrete evidence on ...
ITAT Pune rules in favor of Ashok Ravsaheb Tambe, deleting addition of cash deposits during demonetization, explained as proceeds from a gold loan.
ITAT Pune remands the case of Suhas Maruti Dhankude for re-adjudication due to non-adjudication of jurisdictional grounds and failure to state point of determination.
Punjab & Haryana HC upholds Principal Commissioner’s revision under Section 263. Assessing Officer’s wrong Section 44ADA assessment found erroneous.
Notice under section 148 was issued upon assessee by AO for reassessing the cash deposit as undisclosed income, following approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) relied upon fresh submissions and additional evidence filed by the assessee, however, no opportunity was granted to AO to examine the fresh evidences. Accordingly, order set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as revenue failed to prove that cash sales are fictitious/ bogus.
Read the detailed analysis of Prem Prakash Sethi vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) case where ITAT deletes addition on unexplained jewellery and cash. Full text of the order included.
Calcutta High Court held that petitioner not put to notice in respect of addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as notice was issued making addition u/s. 68. Accordingly, the same is violative of principles of natural justice.
ITAT Delhi held that approval granted u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act by the superior authority in mechanical manner has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. Thus, assessment order in consequence to such inexplicable approval lacks legality.
In the case of Anil Champalal Jain vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai), learn why Mumbai ITAT ruled that cash deposits during demonetization alone cannot justify income addition without clear evidence of accounting errors. Read the full text of the order for detailed insights.
