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...
Trushar Parimal Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The addition in the present case was made under section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenses. Indeed, the primary onus lies on the assessee to justify the expenses claimed by him. However from the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has discharged his onus […]
Addition under section 69C on the basis of statement of third party without granting opportunity of cross-examination to assessee was not valid as it amounted to ivolation of principle of natural justice and against the law
Pratibha Pipes & Structurals Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case, on perusal of facts available on record, we find that the AO has not made addition only on the basis of report of sales-tax department. In fact, the AO has conducted all possible enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings, as per which, […]
Where assessee had not proved actual rendition of the foundation services and also whether alleged service providers possessed necessary expertise and infrastructure to render the foundation services, AO was justified in making addition of payments made to them, under section 69C.
This appeal, filed by the assesseee, being ITA No. 2960/Mum/2016, is directed against the appellate order dated 16.02.2016 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane (hereinafter called the CIT(A)), for assessment year 2011-12, appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 25.03.2014 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called the AO) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).
These two appeals, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 2135/Mum/2013 & I.T.A. No. 4896/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2009- 10 and 2008-09 respectively are directed against two separate appellate orders dated 22.01.2013 and 25-02-2015 respectively passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33
Section 68 incorporates only a rule of evidence, placing the onus of proof on the assessee. There have been hardly any amendments in this section since its introduction.
The assessee further contended that additions cannot be made towards purchases merely on the basis of third party information ignoring the evidences filed to justify purchases. The assessee further contended before the lower authorities that the assessing officer neither pointed out any error or discrepancy in the books of account nor did make out any case of sales made outside the books of account.
Sub-section (2) of said section provides that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set-off of any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1).
Merely because 133(6) notices issued to the party returned un-served though it was the same address, which was supplied by supplier while filing its income tax return, no fault can be put on the shoulder of assessee.
