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 Ahmedabad dismisses Somnath Kelavni Mandal's income tax appeal due to continuous absence in proceedings. Case pertains to une...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai deletes additions under Section 69A for cash deposits made during demonetization by P. Tamilmani. Case highlights pro...
Income Tax : Additional income offered by assessee on account of cash and excess stock is liable to be taxed as business income and not unexpla...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules bad debt recovery as business income, deleting Rs. 1 crore addition under Section 69A. Read full details on the...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that loose sheets picked u/s 132, falls within definition of ‘document’ mentioned in section 132(4) and theref...
ITAT Delhi in Preeti Bhardwaj Vs ITO held that AO cannot treat cash deposits as unexplained when assessee has provided the source of cash deposits being cash withdrawals without bringing adverse material.
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in the case of Vivekkumar S Bhavsar vs ITO, where the matter was remanded back to the AO due to lack of cooperation from the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue’s appeal, ruling photocopy of sale agreement insufficient evidence for income addition. Analysis & judgment explained.
ITAT Delhi held that the reopening of assessment had been initiated by mere surmise and conjecture without having any cogent material to form a reasonable belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court held that even if AO of both searched person and other person is same, for completing Assessment proceedings and passing the Assessment order has to be calculated from the date on which the documents were handed over or deemed to have been handed over to the AO of the “other person”.
ITAT Chandigarh held that excess stock found during the course of survey cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69B of the Income Tax Act as the same is undeclared business income and not unexplained investment.
In the case of ACIT Vs Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad ruled that mere maintenance of a bank account with a social co-operative bank cannot be a basis for assuming that the assessee is engaged in accommodation entries. Get insights into the case and the tribunal’s decision.
Bangalore ITAT’s ruling on cash deposits during demonetization raises questions on verification methods. Learn about the case between ITO and Shri Chatrapati Shivaji.
Mumbai ITAT rules that a retracted statement without nexus to the taxpayer cannot justify addition under Sec 69A, offering relief to the appellant in Mayur Kanjibhai Shah Vs ITO.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition invoking the deeming provisions of section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unjustified as nature and source of undisclosed income/ investment duly explained by the assessee.
