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 addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act sustained as cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be said to be cash gifts received during occasion of marriage in December 2015.
Explore the PCIT Vs Goutam Chakraborty case where Calcutta High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, upholding the deletion of additions under section 69A for seized gold.
The ITAT Chandigarh directs reassessment in a case where the appellant, Puran Singh, was unaware of a notice due to its delivery on his counsel’s e-mail ID, leading to the inability to provide explanations on cash deposits.
ITAT Pune held that that the amount surrendered under unrecorded stock has to be brought to tax under the head “business income” and no provision u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act is attracted.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act untenable as cash deposited during the demonetization period duly explained.
In the case of Rammohan Kordale vs ACIT, ITAT Bangalore held that money transferred between assessee’s joint bank accounts cannot be classified as unexplained money under Section 69A of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that more specific plea and explanation ought to be given by an assessee for discharging burden u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act to explain jewelry beyond that mentioned in Wealth Tax Return.
Explore the verdict of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Hemavathi Ramesh Vs ITO, where cash deposits from earlier deposits were deemed taxable. Delve into the legal nuances and implications of the judgement.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 blocking the tweets/accounts for an indefinite period are unassailable on the doctrine of proportionality.
ITAT Dehradun held that addition of cash deposits made during the demonetization period unsustained as predominant source of income was only agricultural income and no other source of income is brought on record by AO.
