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 Visakhapatnam remanded the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration since CIT(A) passed ex-parte order as there was on response on behalf of the assessee.
ITAT Surat condoned the delay of 159 days in filing of an appeal as delay in filing appeal is not intentional nor deliberate and assessee was prevented by sufficient reason for not filing an appeal on time.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act untenable since AO didn’t record any satisfaction to the effect that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act are violated.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act made without proper examination of the books of account and relevant financial records unjustified. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored back.
Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key cases provide insights into tax disputes.
ITAT Bangalore allows Vikas Co-operative’s appeal, stating addition under Section 69A cannot be made solely on the basis of not accepting demonetized currency.
ITAT Delhi directs the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the case of Puneet Utreja. The Tribunal ruled that the explanation on Term Deposit maturity and redemption was adequate.
ITAT Delhi removes addition of ₹2.9 Cr by AO in property transaction under Section 69A. CIT(A) accepts purchase and sale documents. Read the full judgment.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition u/s. 69A unjustified as cash deposited in bank account is from business income and the same is already considered under the Profits & gains of business or profession.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that addition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained income sustained since assessee failed to substantiate the nature and source of cash deposits in bank.
