Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 69A

Sec. 260A, Income Tax Case Laws, Section 69A

Delhi H.C : the appellant and other joint account holders had an over draft facility and the amounts withdrawn were for construction of a building belonging to the three joint account holders and the surplus money, when not required, was re-deposited.

Avijit Das / August 8, 2018

High Court Of Delhi Late Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain Vs. Pr.CIT Section 260A, 69A Sanjiv Khanna & Chander Shekhar, JJ. […]

Income Tax Case Laws, Section 69A

Patna H.C : M/s Pawan Carrier being a separate taxable entity and old assessee of Ward No 18(12), Kolkata and admittedly having executed the carriage contract in question and received payment for the same through Bank can be held to be a smoke screen or front for the Appellant-Assessee?

Avijit Das / April 16, 2018

High Court Of Patna Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 69A The CJ. & Rajeev Ranjan

Section 69A, Sec. 142(1), Sec. 143(2), Section 143

Patna H.C : The appellant’s case confirmation of addition u/s 69A amounting to Rs.1,04,71,720 is legal and valid

Avijit Das / December 18, 2017

High Court Of Patna D. N. Singh vs. CIT Section 69A, 142(1), 143(2) Asst. Year 1995-96 Dr. Ravi Ranjan &

Kerala H.C : Where AO made addition to assessee’s income in respect of gold ornaments recovered from him after rejecting his explanation that it belonged to his employer company, in view of fact that director of employer company in his statement recorded under sec. 131 denied to have given ornaments to assessee for sale or as samples, impugned addition was to be confirmed

Avijit Das / August 23, 2017

High Court Of Kerala Karun Dutt Singh Vs. CIT Section 69A Assessment Year : 2007-08 Antony Dominic And Dama Seshadri

Section 69A, Sec. 158BC

Madras H.C : Where revenue made addition on account of suppressed receipts in case of medical practitioner, Tribunal in absence of materials or discussion of evidence could not have allowed 42 per cent deduction from gross receipts towards non-receipt of fees and cost of medicines

Avijit Das / August 21, 2017

High Court Of Madras CIT, Chennai Vs. Dr. Hakeem S.A. Syed Sathar Section : 69A,158BC Block Period : 1997-98 to

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Where Tribunal had deleted additions in assessee’s case taking a view that he had explained sources of income declared in course of search proceedings, a criminal complaint filed on basis of said additions also deserved to be quashed

Avijit Das / August 8, 2017

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Hissar Vs. Dr. Kaushal Goyal Section 69A H.S.

Section 69A, Sec. 260A, Section 148

Allahabad H.C : The assessment of the said year 2001-02 was completed and proceedings for re-assessment were initiated under Section 148 and a notice was given to the petitioner to explain the source of the above capital as inducted in the partnership.

Avijit Das / July 18, 2017

High Court Of Allahabad Sarika Jain vs. CIT Pankaj Mithal & Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. Section 69-A, 148, 260-A Asst.

Section 69A, Sec. 133A

Delhi H.C :the surrender made by the assessee in the course of the survey and confirmed two months later in writing, was deserved to be deleted in the circumstances of the case for lack of any corroborative material

Avijit Das / May 1, 2017

High Court Of Delhi Pr. CIT (C)-2, New Delhi vs. Avinash Kumar Setia Section 69A, 133A Assessment year 2009-10 Dr.

Section 147, Section 151, Section 69A

Delhi H.C : Merely because recipient of donation had offered unaccounted money to tax would not mean that same was undisclosed income of donor that had escaped assessment when bank withdrawals substantiate donation made

Avijit Das / April 11, 2017

High Court Of Delhi Shamshad Khan vs. ACIT Section : 69A, 147, 151 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Muralidhar And Najmi

Allahabad H.C : Undisclosed income in the form of cash & jewellery found & seized from various bank lockers be consider in the hands of the wife & sons of the assessee only because they owned it up when it was established that they had no known source to have accumulated so much of cash and jewellery whereas the assessee had huge undisclosed professional income

Avijit Das / March 30, 2017

High Court Of Allahabad CIT (Central) Kanpur vs. Dr. G. G. Dhir Section : 69A Block period : 1-4-1997 to

Post pagination

1 2 … 7 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top