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...
Comparison between section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B and section 69C: -So far as section 68 is concerned, the onus is wholly upon the Assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, the words used show that before any of these sections are invoked, the condition precedent as to existence of investment, expenditure, etc. must be conclusively established by material on record/ evidence.
Background To begin with, the unexplained income simply means any income for which assessee do not have valid explanation about the nature and / or source or the assessing officer is not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. Under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) broadly, the term ‘unexplained income’ is […]
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.
