Income Tax : Discover the tax implications and rates for undisclosed sources of income under Sections 68-69D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn...
Income Tax : Explore the intricacies of gold taxation in India, covering physical gold, paper gold, gold derivatives, inheritance tax, and comp...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of demonetization on cash deposits in India and the key legal insights from Section 69A vs. Section 44AD cases....
Income Tax : Explore sections 68 to 69D of Income Tax Act 1961, covering unexplained cash credits, investments, and more. Learn about legal pro...
Income Tax : Explore the differences between income tax Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C in India, their taxability, and implications. Understand...
Income Tax : ITAT Indore held that rejection of appeal by CIT(A) on the footing of non-payment of advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b) ...
Income Tax : Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from p...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 2...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune rules in favor of Ashok Ravsaheb Tambe, deleting addition of cash deposits during demonetization, explained as proceeds ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune remands the case of Suhas Maruti Dhankude for re-adjudication due to non-adjudication of jurisdictional grounds and fail...
Explore the ITAT Chennai resolution in the case of Shri Krishnapandian Balaji vs. DCIT regarding unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. Learn how the assessee justified the source as rental income.
Explore the Harpreet Singh Grover vs. ITO case at ITAT Amritsar. Analysis of cash deposit controversy, CIT(A) decision, and ITAT’s order for de novo adjudication.
Lateef Abdul Mohd. successfully challenges ITAT Hyderabad decision on cash deposit addition during demonetization, citing sales correspondence and legal precedent.
As section 50C applies only to a capital asst, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land.
Col. Ranjan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank on 05.06.2015. I notice that the assessee has withdrawn cash in small amounts in subsequent period also. Since the assessee is an aged person and retired from army, it is quite possible that […]
Revenue cannot make the additions under Section 69A for the reason that assessee has not cooperated with the department.
Om Parkash Nahar Vs. ITO ( ITAT-Delhi) The amount deposited during demonetization period was relate to out of withdrawals from the same account from 2014,2015 & 2016 is not treated as income from undisclosed source The assessee’s explanation is that looking to his old age and suffering from various ailments as he had suffered a […]
Kiran Bala Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the learned AO that the assessee has declared long term capital gains of Rs.31,29,215/- towards sale of jewellery and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act against investment made in construction of house. Assessee was asked to […]
M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Coming to the question regarding action of the learned CIT (Appeals) to treat the reference u/s 142 for the purpose of Section 69B, I find merit into the contention of the assessee that there is no power conferred upon the learned CIT(Appeals) to assess a […]
Entries relating to advances received from Hardev Singh and his son Maninder Singh Sahi from Canada were recorded in books of account and assessee also explained that amount was received as an advance for making investment in property by said person, and assessee was engaged in the property business. Assessee also requested AO to summon concerned party under section 131 but AO did not accede to the request of assessee and made the addition, therefore, addition made by AO was not justified.
