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...
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.
