S. 80 : Return for losses-Non-resident Indian-Tax audit-Audit as per Reserve Bank of India permission-Due date for filing of return was 30-9-2016-Return was filed on 17-10 2016-Loss not allowed to be carry forward. [S.44AB, 72,139(1),Explanation 2(a)(ii), 139(3)]
Gulu Hassanand Raney v. ADIT (IT)(2023) 201 ITD 63/ 225 TTJ 725 (Mum)(Trib)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Accommodation entries-information by investigation wing-assessee failed to prove whole purchases as genuine-5 % profit element to be added in purchases. [S. 147,148]
Sawailal Surtaram Bhatti v .ITO (2023)103 ITR 262 (Mum) (Trib)S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Excess stock-Survey-Addition is restricted only to profit element of stock.[S.133A]
Sukumar Solvent (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 200 ITD 614 (Kol (Trib.)S. 69A : Unexplained money-Difference between sale consideration shown in registered deed and that deposited in bank account-Appeal arising out of lack of verification-Matter remitted to Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo.
Hari Chand v. ITO (2023) 155 taxmann.com 492/ 105 ITR 610 (Amritsar)(Trib)S. 69A : Unexplained money-Ownership of cash found in premises-Protective and substantive assessment pending for determination-Matter remitted to Assessing Officer.[S. 132]
Hira Lal Kadlabju v. Asst. CIT (2023)104 ITR 608/ 202 ITD 133 (Amritsar)(Trib) Anish Bhan v. ITO (2023)104 ITR 608 (Amritsar)(Trib)S. 69A : Unexplained money-Demonetisation-Cash deposits of specified bank notes during demonetisation period-AO accepting explanation of assessee that receipts from business-however, treating the deposits as unexplained solely on the ground that notes ceased to be legal tender-Unjustified.[S. 132]
Eagle Fleet Services vs. Asst. CIT (2023) 105 ITR 78(SN) (Chennai) (Trib)S. 69A : Unexplained money-Compensation on land acquisition-Received on husband’s bank account-Withdrawn from and deposited in assessee’s bank account-No material to prove that money utilised for other purpose-Addition is deleted.[S. 68]
Santosh v.ITO (2023)101 ITR 32 (SN.)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Search-Source of the Jewellery found during the Search/Seizure Operation-Benefit of instruction No.1916 dated 11.05.1994 issued by CBDT.[S. 132]
Tara Kabra v. DCIT, CC-1(3) (Mum)(Trib)S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Cash paid to the developer for purchase of land-during the course of survey action developer accepted the receipt of on money and details of the same was provided-in the absence of providing the source, the AO is justified in treating the payment as income from undisclosed sources.
Anoop Gopikishan Jaju v. Asst. CIT (2023) 105 ITR 22 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Demonetisation-Cash withdrawal-Only source of income is pension-Addition is deleted. [S. 68]
Abbasali Chinikamwalla v. ITO, (Mum)(Trib.) (UR)