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 ...
The assessee earned income from selling milk and filed her return for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.1,78,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny with the reason of “large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income”.
Denial of the entire expenditure incurred towards as cost of construction by AO could not be held to be justified even if assessee did not submit satisfactory bills/vouchers in support of her claim towards the cost of construction.
ITAT Surat held that purchase of credit cards by making cash payments without providing explanation with regard to nature and source of money is liable to be added under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee was engaged in the business of providing works contract service and labour service. AO found that assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs.62,10,000/- in the bank account during demonetization period.
Both the revenue authorities have accepted the books of accounts, book results could not be disturbed once it is admitted that cash sales are recorded in books and forming part of turnover of the business.
CIT (A) erred in treating the loan of Rs.90.52 crores u/s 69A/69B when the show cause notice of enhancement was with reference to section 69 and there were neither any investments which were not recorded in the books of account nor is there any such finding by the CIT(A).
Assessee was also expected to be vigilante in so far as assessment proceedings were concerned. Most of the time assessee went in slow motion and avoid proceedings by not responding to notice(s) of Department, not appearing before AO, not following up with CA/Advocates.
ITAT Chennai deletes addition of Rs.53.23 Lakh on cash deposits during demonetization and directs re-computation of income in Balu Vignesh case.
ITAT Delhi remands appeal to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to denial of personal hearing in Kumar Kanti Das Vs ACIT case for AY 2017-18.
ITAT Kolkata held that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be restricted to the dividend yielding investments. Accordingly, AO directed to re-compute disallowance.
