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 : Explore the heavy tax implications on taxpayers for unexplained investments and expenditures under Income Tax Act sections 69 to 6...
Income Tax : Explore sections 68 to 69D of Income Tax Act 1961, covering unexplained cash credits, investments, and more. Learn about legal pro...
Income Tax : Explore the differences between income tax Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C in India, their taxability, and implications. Understand...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : Explore the detailed ITAT Mumbai order analysis of Yogesh P. Thakkar vs DCIT, focusing on disputed long-term capital gains and com...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in DCIT vs. Dilip B. Jiwrajka covering appeals against additions of unexplained income...
Income Tax : Explore the case of Shaily Prince Goyal vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) regarding cash credits from penny stock sales. Detailed analysis of S...
Income Tax : Explore the Delhi High Court's judgment on ITSC's conclusive nature for AY, assessing reassessment under Section 148 of the Income...
Income Tax : Discover the ITAT Chennai verdict on Santhilal Jain Vijay Kumar Vs ITO, addressing taxation on excess stock and unexplained marria...
Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing, Kolkata wherein it was alleged that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus Long-Term Capital gains (LTCG) by dealing in a scrip namely M/s Unisys Software & Holding Industries Ltd. (in short ‘Unisys’). Accordingly, the case […]
Assessment order could not have been passed by the Assessing Officer without granting an opportunity to respondent to defend his position or cross-examine the two persons on whose affidavits, the Assessing Officer had relied upon to conclude that respondent had made certain purchases from those persons identified as Hawala Traders.
As per section 68 of the Income Tax Act, any sum found credited in the books of a taxpayer, for which he does not explain the nature and source or the explanation provided by him is not satisfactory by the Assessing Officer is termed as ‘Cash Credit‘. Other provisions to be kept in mind with […]
Where AO made addition under section 68 in respect of a loan received by assessee, however, it was found that the said loan was not received during the assessment year under consideration; the addition made under section 68 on account of such loan was not called for during the said assessment year and hence, the said addition was liable to be deleted.
If assessee opts for presumptive taxation it cannot claim any deduction of any expenditure including Depreciation. Since no deduction is allowed the AO is not permitted to add back the income as unexplained expenditure.
Sudarsanan P. S. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) The last question that was argued by Adv.Arun Raj related to the claim under Section 69C of the Act for the payment of Rs.3,26,380/-. As mentioned earlier, when satisfactory explanation is not offered by the assessee, the assessing officer is entitled to draw inferences. The expenditure to […]
Yagnesh Dayabhai Vyas Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ld. A.R. cited a judgment of ITAT Delhi Bench in the matter of Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO where A.O. made addition to assessee’s income under section 69C in respect of amount payable to creditors towards purchases, in view of fact that said purchases were duly recorded in […]
Bajaj Sons Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) We find that a separate surrender of Rs. 97.11 lacs has been made by Shri SB Bajaj Director of the assessee company on account of unexplained cash found during the search action. However, so far as the surrender of Rs. 15 lac to cover any discrepancy is concerned, […]
Merely because the some Directors did not appear in the case of assessee would not be a ground to have an adverse inference against the assessee, therefore, there was no justification to sustain the addition of Rs.45 lakhs under section 68 and addition of Rs.90,000/- under section 69C.
Atul Dinesh Seth Vs ITO (ITAT Bnagalore) The contention of the A.R. is that once the income of the assessee estimated by applying the section 44AF of the Act, there cannot be any further addition for any lapse in the books of accounts. In these assessment years, except AY 2011-12, the turnover of the assessee is […]
