Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules unaccounted customer deposits, with traceable identities and commercial substance, are liabilities, not income ...
Income Tax : Overview of Income Tax Sections 69A, 69B, on unexplained income, investments, and expenditures. Key cases and interpretations incl...
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 : ITAT Ahmedabad held that weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act rightly disallowed as donation is given ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act towards bogus purchases cannot be sustained merely for failu...
Income Tax : Chhattisgarh High Court sets aside tax orders in B.L. Agrawal case, citing failure to consider key evidence on alleged black money...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT dismisses tax additions on share sale gains and purchase cost, citing assessee's documentation and accepted source in ...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur held that providing unreasonably short period of time of six days for furnishing reply vide notice issued u/s. 148A(b)...
Assessee had strongly contended that he was unaware of who Shri Kaustubh Latke and Shri Shailesh Patil are, since they were not connected with him or Rucha Group.
Bombay HC affirms 100% addition under S. 69C for unproven purchases, reversing tribunal’s 12.5% estimation. Details on the ruling.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided for amount of understated/ suppressed net profit. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and penalty upheld.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition, treating share application money as unexplained income, based on surmises and conjectures without making proper verification of facts with relevant materials and evidences is not sustainable in law.
Bombay High Court upholds AO’s addition for unverified bogus purchases in PCIT vs. Kanak Impex. Decision based on Section 69C and apex court precedents.
Overview of Income Tax Sections 69A, 69B, on unexplained income, investments, and expenditures. Key cases and interpretations included.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the unaccounted receipts from the sale of properties are subjected to taxation as part of the capital gains computation, the related unaccounted expenditures stand explained and cannot be taxed separately as unexplained expenses.
ITAT Nagpur allows Revenue’s appeal in ACIT Vs Unique Realities Builders & Developers, validating Section 153C proceedings and Section 69A income additions.
A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s case on 14.11.2019. AO observed that during the course of search action, a pen drive was found from the cabin of the Head-Cashier.
DCIT Vs Triton Hotels and Resorts Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, adjudicated appeals in the case of DCIT Vs Triton Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The matter primarily pertained to unexplained expenditures assessed under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year (AY) 2020-21. Cross-appeals were filed […]
