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 115BBE not invocable in case of addition u/s. 69A towards unexplained money as assessee is having only one source of income from business and claims that source for cash deposits is out of sales of the year.
In this article, we discuss case of Hasmukh Kanjibhai Tadhani Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) involving cash deposits during demonetization, with detailed analysis and outcome
Cash deposited during demonetization can’t be unexplained if taxpayer has a history of cash sales and no discrepancies found in books.
ITAT Chennai directs AO to accept 50% of cash deposits as sale proceeds and balance as unexplained money in J. Kalappa Naidu Sons’ case vs. ITO.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as assessee has filed necessary evidence to explain nature and source for cash deposits.
ITAT Delhi held that for the purpose of Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment can be said to be ‘made’ only when the DIN is quoted on the order before it is signed. Order passed u/s 153A without first generating the DIN is invalid and bad-in-law.
ITAT Chandigarh’s ruling on the necessity of proper service for Income Tax notices. An in-depth analysis of Sandeep Kumar vs. ITO case. Learn more.
ITAT Amritsar held that excess stock found during the survey only be treated as income under the head business income and not as deemed income under section 69B of the Income Tax Act.
Analysis of ITAT Chennai’s decision in Smt. Saraniyaa Karthick vs. ITO regarding the estimation of addition on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period.
ITAT Amritsar held that once source of surrendered income is proved to be business income, the same cannot be taxed as deemed income under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
