The ITAT held that the assessee failed to explain the nature and ...

Unexplained investments taxed u/ss 56 and 69; ITAT directs PCIT for further inquiry.

January 4, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

The ITAT held that the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of investment with necessary supporting evidence. The PCIT's action invoking section 263 was in accordance with statutory provisions. While the AO should have taxed Rs. 14,93,393/- u/s 56(2)(x) and Rs. 33,18,000/- u/s 69 instead of the entire stamp duty value, the matter was set aside to the PCIT for further inquiry regarding year of purchase, purchase cost, and date-wise payments to determine the amount of investment u/s 69. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The ITAT held that the assessee failed to explain the nature and ...

Unexplained investments taxed u/ss 56 and 69; ITAT directs PCIT for further inquiry.

January 4, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The Appellate Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 51.20 lacs as unexplained investment u/ss 69 or 56(2)(x)/6(2)(vii) was unjustified as there was no evidence of...

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Unexplained bank deposits - PCIT, without making further inquiry on his own account, has simply stated in the impugned order that the Assessing...

Revision u/s 263 - addition u/s 56(2)(viib) - Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act s only applicable to residents and not to Non Residents. - In the instant case also Ld. A.O...

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - as per CIT AO had failed to verify applicability of the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) - As far as the invocation of Explanation 2 to...

The case pertains to the revision of an assessment order u/s 263 regarding the applicability of the higher tax rate u/s 115BBE on unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. The...

The assessee borrowed loans from financial institutions at an interest rate of 12.75% and advanced loans to group companies or relatives at 12% interest rate. The...

Applicability of Section 56(2)(x) and the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Jaipur-1, in revising the order u/s 263. The key points are:...

The assessee was allowed deduction u/s 54/54F without proper examination of relevant details and materials. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment u/s 143(3)...

Key legal issues and the Tribunal's holdings: Agricultural land sold by assessee situated beyond municipal limits cannot be treated as capital asset u/s 2(14). Addition...

Sum advanced to sister concern by cheques drawn – Unexplained investment or not - it has been rightly treated as unexplained investment in terms of Section 69B of the...

The Delhi HC in PCIT vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi HUF held that interest, whether on compensation or enhanced compensation received on acquisition of land u/ss 28 or 34 of...

Additions u/s 56(1) on account of share premium received by the assessee through allotment of shares to non-resident companies. The Tribunal observed that the transfer...

Unexplained investment u/s. 69 - Asstt. Comm. of Commercial Taxes estimated the valuation of WIP without mentioning the quantity or rate of the individual item - AO...

Revision u/s 263 - receipt of on-money - incriminating material found in search or not? - PCIT should himself have conducted the enquiry or causing to make such...

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - if the learned PCIT was of the view that the AO failed to make the necessary enquiries which should have been made during the assessment...

Quick Updates: