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...
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 : Article explains how surrendered income is treated under I.T Act, particularly focusing on applicability of Sections 68 to 69D and...
Income Tax : Discover the tax implications and rates for undisclosed sources of income under Sections 68-69D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune remands an ex-parte order after considering the senior citizen assessee’s tech constraints, allowing fresh appeal proc...
Income Tax : CIT (A) was right in its decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2.92 crore made by AO under Section 69B for alleged undervaluation...
Income Tax : 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 ...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat held that addition based on unsigned, undated and unstamped Satakhat/ sale and purchase agreement cannot be sustained s...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed investment in shares and unsecured loans merely based on observation made by DCI...
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition invoking the deeming provisions of section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unjustified as nature and source of undisclosed income/ investment duly explained by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that “full value of consideration” or “cost of investment” cannot be substituted by the fair market value (FMV), except in the case falling within the purview of 50C and Sec. 56(l)(vi)/(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
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.
