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 Chennai held that provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked when cash is sourced out of recorded sales. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition u/s. 69A is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Raipur held that adding entire bank receipts without inquiries from parties is unjustified. Case remanded for further examination under natural justice principles.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes addition of ₹6.16 lakh under Section 69A for unexplained jewellery, considering joint ownership of locker and affidavit from the daughter.
ITAT Lucknow held that cash deposits out of the past savings during demonetization being reasonable and as per social standing of the assessee is justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition is directed to be deleted.
Learn how the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act due to the AO’s misapplication of law in taxing Stamp Duty Valuation and Unexplained Investment. Explore detailed analysis of Section 56(2)(x), Section 69, and key judicial precedents.
ITAT Ahmedabad upholds ₹4.64 crore addition under Section 69A due to unexplained bank transactions and lack of cooperation from the assessee in tax proceedings.
ITAT Pune rules that taxpayers must disclose cash-in-hand, bank balances, and receivables, even under the Presumptive Taxation Scheme, for accurate tax assessment.
Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 69A towards cash deposits during demonetization deleted since cash deposit was made out of earlier withdrawals. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that when the cash is sourced out of recorded sales, the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked since sales have already been offered to tax and taxing same again u/s. 69A would amount to double taxation.
