Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
Income Tax : This guide explains how unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and related provisions can attract steep taxation under Section ...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
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 Surat held that rural agricultural land falls outside Section 2(14), deleting capital gains and related additions....
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that gold deposit agreements produced after the survey, without contemporaneous evidence or book entries, coul...
Income Tax : A belated filing of Form 3CLA was a curable procedural defect and could not deprive an assessee of weighted deduction under sectio...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that loose sheets and estimates alone cannot justify an addition under Section 69B without independent corrobora...
Income Tax : The Chennai ITAT held that excess stock found during a survey could not be taxed as unexplained investment when it had been accoun...
Income Tax : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
ITAT Delhi set aside a reassessment after holding that the ACIT lacked jurisdiction to issue a Section 148 notice. The Tribunal found that the assessee’s returned income was below the CBDT threshold requiring jurisdiction to remain with the ITO.
The Tribunal emphasized that once sales are entered in regular books and supported by stock records, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove them false. In the absence of such proof, Section 68 could not be invoked.
CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies in assessments and incorrect tax computations leading to revenue loss.
The Bangalore ITAT held that mere differences between declared construction cost and DVO estimates cannot sustain additions under Section 69B without independent evidence of unaccounted investment. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to hostel construction expenditure.
Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed bank accounts with explained credits. The Tribunal deleted ₹3.29 crore addition for lack of incriminating material.
Madras High Court held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid because the Assessing Officer had effectively rejected the books of accounts after recording discrepancies. The Court upheld the Section 69B addition for unexplained investment in building construction.
ITAT Mumbai held that prolonged non-payment of interest and repeated amendments to loan agreements justified benchmarking AE loans at a fixed 6.5% rate instead of floating LIBOR rates. The Tribunal also directed grant of credit for interest income already offered to tax suo motu.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that additions for alleged cash payments cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party seized documents. The Tribunal ruled that absence of corroborative evidence, cash trail, or signed records makes such additions legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey had direct nexus with business operations. It ruled that such income should be taxed as business income, not as unexplained investment under special provisions.
The issue was whether jewellery found during search can be taxed despite CBDT limits. ITAT held that jewellery within prescribed limits cannot be treated as unexplained income.
