Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : A doctrinal analysis of unexplained cash credits, investments, and expenditure under Sections 68–69D. Explains burden of proof a...
Income Tax : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice...
Income Tax : The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material directly connecting the assessee to alleged ca...
Income Tax : The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. I...
ACIT Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (HUF) (ITAT Delhi) > HELD THAT:- In the present assessee’s case, search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.10.2009 in the premises of Mr. Abhinav Arora and Mrs. Ranju Arora. Consequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act […]
Bajaj Sons Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) We find that a separate surrender of Rs. 97.11 lacs has been made by Shri SB Bajaj Director of the assessee company on account of unexplained cash found during the search action. However, so far as the surrender of Rs. 15 lac to cover any discrepancy is concerned, […]
DCIT Vs M/s. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, the reason for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act germinates from the contents of letters dated 27/07/2011 and 06/09/2011 written by one of the employee indicating that the assessee has extended loan of GBP 37.50 million as per part of […]
Kiran Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The AO disallowed the exemption claimed u/s.10(38) solely based on the investigation report by SEBI pertaining to certain cases based from Kolkatta wherein share prices rigged substantially over a period of time. Merely on suspicion and surmises, this disallowance was made without any corroborative evidence. The AO failed to […]
Karan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee has explained that Rs.92,54,462 is out of previous withdrawals and sale of garments and pleaded that it is to be excluded from the taxation. The assessee has not furnished any evidence to establish the nexus between the earlier withdrawals and deposits into various bank accounts. In such […]
Assessing Officer is not obliged to invoke Section 68/s.69 of the Act in every case where the explanation offered is found to be ‘unsatisfactory’ in the opinion of the Assessing Officer.
In the absence of any link between the assessee and the alleged admissions of the directors and brokers, human probability is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the department’s conjectures. No addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect.
Expenditure to the extent of 25% of purchases held as non-genuine and disallowed by the AO related to the same business activity of manufacture and export in respect of which assessee was held eligible for deduction under section 10AA. Therefore, deduction under section 10AA was to be allowed on the enhanced profits in light of accepted legal position by CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, dated 2-11-2016.
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in confirming the addition made by AO for non-genuine and bogus purchases by applying profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases?
The issue under consideration is whether claim to purchase of goods by the assessee could be dealt with u/s 68 of the Income Tax as a cash credit, by placing burden upon the assessee to explain that the purchase price does not represent his income from the disclosed sources?
