Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
Income Tax : A Comprehensive Analysis of Undisclosed Incomes under Sections 68 to 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Taxation of these Incomes Un...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules unaccounted customer deposits, with traceable identities and commercial substance, are liabilities, not income ...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed...
Income Tax : Madras High Court held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid because the Assessing Officer had effectively ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that prolonged non-payment of interest and repeated amendments to loan agreements justified benchmarking AE loans...
Income Tax : The ITAT Hyderabad held that additions for alleged cash payments cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party seized doc...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey had direct nexus with business operations. It ruled that such income shoul...
Rajkot ITAT confirms gross profit estimation and stock addition for Raghuvanshi Cotton Ginning, highlighting the importance of accurate stock reporting.
ITAT Mumbai held that non-response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act by some parties that does not prove that the entire transactions are bogus especially when all other documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the parties have been submitted
Explore the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Pasari Casting vs. Income Tax Department, addressing a critical tax reassessment issue. A detailed analysis inside.
ITAT Chennai’s in Ethiraj Hotel Mart Vs DCIT held that as assessee declared excess stock as business income and provided a plausible explanation for its source, it should be taxed as ‘normal business income’ and not as ‘unexplained investment’ under section 69B.
ITAT Kolkata held that education cess is not allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Read the ITAT Pune order on Vijay Shriram Gundale’s appeal. Excess stock during survey deemed as business income, not other source income. Detailed analysis provided.
Explore the ITAT Delhi ruling in DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi case, clarifying that Section 115BBE doesn’t apply to surrendered income treated under Section 69A.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as based merely on the basis of statement of Director of the Vendor Company without any additional corroborative evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that commission taxed @2% of the amount of accommodation entries provided by the assessee has not been made on ad hoc basis, however, the same is as per prevailing market rate. Accordingly, the addition is sustained.
Read about Babusona Mondal’s appeal against the AO’s addition under Section 69B. ITAT Kolkata rules that additions can’t be made based on conjectures without considering evidence.
