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 Raipur held that exemption under section 11 and section 12 of the Income Tax Act not admissible to assessee society due to non-furnishing of return of income as required u/s. 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
When an assessee deposes on oath giving explanation of the reasons and circumstances for investment, the same could not be brushed aside on the basis of general principles of the modus operandi of bogus LTCG claims.
Assessee didnot file ITR for AY 2012-13 during which assessee made cash deposit of Rs.45,69,722/-. The case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was sent through e-mail against which no ITR was filed. Hence, AO made addition u/s 69A.
Summary of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Anantrai Vithalbhai Parmar vs. CIT (Appeals) for AY 2017-18. Case remanded for reassessment, emphasizing natural justice.
ITAT Patna’s decision in Dharmendra Kumar vs. ITO regarding ₹1.10 crore treated as unexplained income. Appeal dismissed due to non-compliance.
Before ITAT it was submitted by assessee that both the lower authorities have erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte. Revenue also admitted that orders of lower authorities were ex-parte.
TAT Mumbai held that the addition of Rs. 3.05 crore u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act was based on suspicion, ruling it as impermissible without proper inquiry.
The Sections by which the assessees are suffering too much due to high pitched assessments passed by NFAC are from 68 to 69D and 115 BBE. Many orders are struck down by the High Courts through writs and majority of the orders are appealed against and are cancelled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The brief contents of the relevant sections are given below:
ITAT Chennai held that cash collected from customers for purchase of stamp papers were deposited in bank hence source of cash deposits duly explained. Thus, addition towards unexplained cash deposits u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Kolkata deletes ₹8.27 lakh addition under Section 69A, ruling cash deposits belonged to Seva Kendra, not the assessee. Penalty also set aside.
