Browsing Tag

Mumbai tax case

3 posts
“Bought two flats for ₹2.25 crore in 2007. Received tax notice for ₹5.80 crore in 2020 just because stamp duty value jumped. How a single DVO report and the 10% tolerance rule saved both brothers from a massive tax bill — the full story.”

Bought Flats For ₹2.25 Crore, Received IT Dept Notice of ₹5.80 Crore

“Bought two flats for ₹2.25 crore in 2007. Received tax notice for ₹5.80 crore in 2020 just because stamp duty value jumped. How a single DVO report and the 10% tolerance rule saved both brothers from a massive tax bill — the full story.”
A loving addition of a wife's name to a property deed led to a shocking ₹70 lakh capital gains tax notice nearly 10 years later—despite the husband declaring the full sale. ITAT Mumbai remands the matter for verification, offering hope to avoid double taxation in this relatable family tax cautionary tale.

Added Wife’s Name in Property Out of Love? Got ₹70 Lakh Tax Notice

A loving addition of a wife’s name to a property deed led to a shocking ₹70 lakh capital gains tax notice nearly 10 years later—despite the husband declaring the full sale. ITAT Mumbai remands the matter for verification, offering hope to avoid double taxation in this relatable family tax cautionary tale.
ITAT Mumbai has dismissed the tax department's claim of black money against F A Construction, holding that large cash withdrawals were legitimately used to pay daily-wage labourers at remote construction sites. The Tribunal quashed additions of over ₹35 crore under Section 69A, emphasizing documented bank sources and no adverse findings in remand — proving once again that cash-heavy sectors like construction often face initial suspicion that clears with proper evidence.

Taxman Says Builder Had Black Money, Turns Out He Was Paying Labourers in Cash

ITAT Mumbai has dismissed the tax department’s claim of black money against F A Construction, holding that large cash withdrawals were legitimately used to pay daily-wage labourers at remote construction sites. The Tribunal quashed additions of over ₹35 crore under Section 69A, emphasizing documented bank sources and no adverse findings in remand — proving once again that cash-heavy sectors like construction often face initial suspicion that clears with proper evidence.