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...
Applying the test of human probabilities, the Tribunal ruled that unexplained abnormal sales could not be fully accepted. At the same time, absence of book defects warranted estimation instead of outright section 68 taxation.
The issue was whether an extrapolated SCO value could justify unexplained investment in the buyer’s hands. ITAT held that once the seller’s extrapolation was rejected, the buyer’s addition could not survive.
Madras High Court held that Settlement Commission doesn’t possess power to change the head of income and convert the undisclosed portion of income into income u/s. 699B. Further, Settlement application is bound to be rejected once Settlement Commission arrives at the conclusion that full and true disclosure is not done.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could delete a large unexplained investment without following Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that bypassing mandatory procedure invalidates the relief, and the matter must be re-examined.
Delhi ITAT ruled that purchases from paper companies cannot be treated as normal business expenses under Section 37(1). Fraudulent transactions with no goods delivered attract unexplained expenditure taxation under Section 69C and 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that revision cannot be based on alleged lack of enquiry when detailed verification was already done. A mere change of opinion does not justify section 263 action.
The Tribunal held that denial of cross-examination of the third party, whose documents were relied upon, violates principles of natural justice. Such procedural lapse renders additions under section 69B legally invalid.
ITAT Rajkot held that there is no escapement of income or loss of revenue since tax paid on the basis of consolidated profit of both the partnership firm and hence reassessment proceedings are not sustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The AO invoked Explanation 1(v) to section 153 to justify delay. The Tribunal clarified that an invalid 142A reference gives no such protection, rendering the order time-barred.
The Tribunal held that AIR-triggered reopening and additions cannot stand where an NRI explains investments with foreign remittance evidence, and remanded the case for fresh verification.
