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...
PCIT Vs Nageshwar Enterprises (Gujarat High Court) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 328 ITR 411, took the view that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee cannot be subjected to additions. The Co-ordinate Bench proceeded to observe that unless and until some […]
Contrary to the suggestion made by the policy think tank of the Government of India i.e. Niti Aayog to introduce the Gold Amnesty Scheme (‘scheme’), it has now been reported that no such scheme is under consideration by the apex body of direct taxes. The scheme proposed to exempt the levy of penalty, including interest […]
ITO Vs Max Ventures Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) An addition can be made u/s 69B of the Act where during any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, which exceeds the amount recorded on this count in the […]
Gayatri Enterprise Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) Provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied for the purpose of making addition under section 69B of the Act. We fail to understand why section 50C of the Act has been brought into play having regard to the facts of the present case. […]
Addition under section 69B of unaccounted money invested in purchase of land by assessee by paying in cash to sellers of land was justified as assessee-purchaser had no evidence to controvert the same.
provisions of section 142A of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer may refer the matter to the DVO for the purpose of estimation of the value of the asset, property or investment and get a copy of the report from the DVO. The word ‘may’ makes it discretionary to refer the matter to the DVO. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it is mandatory.
Addition made in the income u/s 69B on account of failure of assessee to substantiate the excess stock found at his premises was not justified as the excess stock came on account of sale price taken by Department and since inception of assessee-firm, it was valuing inventory on average cost method/weighted cost price which was verifiable from the statement of accounts appended to Return of Income thus, a method of accounting / Valuation adopted by the taxpayer consistently and regularly could not be discarded by the departmental authorities.
Section 69B cannot be invoked on the assumption that there was understatement of the investment, without a finding that the assessee invested more than what was recorded in the books of account.
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.
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).
