Income Tax : Explore the complex interplay of tradition and tax law surrounding Streedhan (women's jewellery) in India, CBDT guidelines, and co...
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...
Corporate Law : Details on Indian government's blocking of YouTube channels, citing IT Rules 2021 and Section 69A of IT Act 2000. Learn about reas...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is void-ab-initio since income escaped assessment ...
Income Tax : Additions under Section 69A could not be sustained without concrete evidence and due process and AO had not brought any tangible e...
Income Tax : Aggrieved against the directions of CIT(A) to the AO for assessment of gross profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases ...
Income Tax : To ensure fairness, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing....
Income Tax : ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing the AO an...
ITAT Chennai confirms addition of ₹16.20 lakh under Section 69A for demonetized cash deposited by trader; notice deemed valid and appeal dismissed.
ITAT Pune grants partial relief in cash deposit case during demonetization under Section 69A. Dispute centered on unexplained deposits of ₹21.4 lakh.
Surat ITAT partly allows Jayeshbhai Chovatiya’s appeal against unexplained bank credits addition and upholds part of AO’s assessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad quashes ₹4 crore addition against Amitsingh Bhadoriya as AO relied on a bank account not admitted by the taxpayer.
ITAT Raipur held that passing of order by CIT(A) without considering adjournment request of the assessee is not justifiable in law. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards cash deposited during demonization period partly set aside based on CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017. Accordingly, appeal of assessee partly allowed.
ITAT Bangalore allows appeal, deleting addition for demonetization cash deposit, accepting claim of mother’s savings as source. (159 Characters)
ITAT Ahmedabad restores assessment, citing denial of fair opportunity and inadequate evidence review by AO in Sections 69A/69C case. (159 Characters)
ITAT Chennai held that cash sales of liquor is the source of cash deposit during demonetization and accordingly, since the nature and source of investment fully explained by the assessee, addition u/s. 69 of 69A not justifiable.
Patna High Court held that Faceless Assessment Procedure as prescribed under section 144B of the Income Tax Act is duly followed and in course of faceless assessment at every stage approval from competent authorities have been obtained.
