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 Cochin remands case after CIT(A) dismisses appeal without considering additional evidence under Rule 46A in an unexplained mo...
Income Tax : ITAT Cochin remanded Baiju Kabeer’s case to CIT(A) for reassessment, citing lack of opportunity to explain cash deposits. Review...
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...
ITAT Kolkata held that grants from the West Bengal State Government to cooperative societies are not income from other sources and eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the case of Srimathi Pichara Vs ITO, ITAT Hyderabad set aside ex-parte addition of cash deposits made during demonetization period under Section 69A of Income Tax Act. ITAT directed Assessing Officer to readjudicate the matter after providing an opportunity to assessee to produce relevant documents for fact verification
ITAT Raipur held that unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act was received back through banking channel in the form of sale consideration of the shares. Accordingly, the same has to be brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Cuttack held that addition towards the unexplained investment for SBN deposits during demonetization period sustained in absence to establish source of the same without documentary evidences.
Yeddula Harsha Vardhan wins appeal against DCIT at ITAT Hyderabad, as Rs. 4 lakhs addition under section 69A is deleted. Read the full verdict here.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount cannot be treated as unexplained and accordingly addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as amount duly recorded in books of account and offered to tax as professional fees.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once additional income offered during survey was simply accepted and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without invoking provisions of section 115BBE. Then, provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked via rectification as per section 154.
Delve into the intricacies of the case Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), analyzing the discrepancy between Section 68 and Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
SC held that assessee was not the owner of bitumen for Section 69A, and bitumen could not be classified as an ‘other valuable article’ under section 69A.
DCIT Vs Shri Sanjay Singhal (ITAT Delhi) The undisputed fact is that the substantive as well as protective additions have been made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. A bare perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that no money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article was found during search conducted on 07.04.2017 which is […]
