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 ...
Assessee was not entitled to claim long term capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38) and the same was deemed to be income under section 69A as it was revealed that purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions by assessee to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt long term capital gain by well organised network of entry providers with the sole motive to sell such entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income for a consideration or commission.
DCIT Vs M/s. Karthik Construction Co. (ITAT Mumbai) As could be seen, the Assessing Officer raised suspicion on the loan repayment by doubting the genuineness of the unsecured loan availed by the assessee against which such loan repayment was made. However, as per the facts on record, unsecured loans which were repaid by the assessee […]
Section 68 incorporates only a rule of evidence, placing the onus of proof on the assessee. There have been hardly any amendments in this section since its introduction.
These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-13, Mumbai and order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-14, Mumbai dated 28-1-2016 for the assessment year 2006-07. Since facts are identical and issues are common, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
Sub-section (2) of said section provides that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set-off of any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1).
The assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence to establish his claims that the deposits in the ICICI Bank, saving bank account at Khar (W), Mumbai was out of receipts connected with his business transactions
For invoking provisions of section 69A assessee should be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable articles. In this case of assessee he was not found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable articles.
In order to avoid unnecessary litigation, it is proposed to amend the provisions of the sub-section (2) of section 11 5BBE to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under the sections 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D.
Suspicion and doubt may be the starting point of an investigation but cannot, at the final stage of assessment, take the place of relevant facts, particularly where a deeming provision is sought to be invoked.
In the case of M/s Bhagwati Motors Vs. ITO Chandigarh bench of ITAT have held that Assessee merely acted as a conduit without any right in money, therefore, no addition under section 69A of the Act could be made against the assessee.
