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...
A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) The issue before us relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found short with the assessee. Cash short, at the most represents expenses / outgoings out of cash available with the assessee not accounted for in the books of the […]
Shri Bhuwan Goyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Landmark Chandigarh ITAT order on Section 115BBE on investment made out of undisclosed business income held not to fall in Section 69 & 115BBE (AY 17-18). In the present case it is not in dispute that the assessee surrenderd the income of Rs. 3.64 Crores in the statement […]
ITO Vs Abhay Kantilal Shah (ITAT Mumbai) In instant case, as mentioned earlier, the assessee has filed before the AO copies of (i) bank statements for the financial year 201011, evidencing the payments made to these parties; (ii) ledger account of all the parties; (iii) purchase invoices from these parties and (iv) sale invoices as […]
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made u/s 69 by AO due to undisclosed sources of cash deposits in bank account is justified in law?
Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Asking the assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the expenditure to the extent of 92% of gross receipts, would also defeat the purpose of presumptive taxation as provided under section 44AD of the Act or other such provision. Since the scheme of presumptive taxation […]
Jadhav Kangralkar Builders Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) We find that there is no dispute regarding the business of assessee and earning Rs.200/- extra over and above regular income for selling 37,752 sq. ft. in Aayodhya Nagari project. From the day one i.e. from date of survey as discussed above, the assessee was contended the amount […]
For instance, scribbling or rough notings found on loose papers cannot be straightaway classified as ‘incriminating material’ unless the AO establishes nexus or connect of such notings with unearthing of undisclosed income of the assessee. This nexus or connect has to be brought out in explicit terms with corroborative material or evidence which any prudent man properly instructed in law must be able to understand or correlate so as to justify the AO’s inference of undisclosed income from such seized incriminating material.
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is justified in making addition u/s 68 towards alleged unexplained deposit in the bank account in as much as a bank account is not a book of account maintained by the appellant?
Comparison between section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B and section 69C: -So far as section 68 is concerned, the onus is wholly upon the Assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, the words used show that before any of these sections are invoked, the condition precedent as to existence of investment, expenditure, etc. must be conclusively established by material on record/ evidence.
whether CIT(A) is justified in quashing the action of the AO u/s 154 in applying provision of section 115BBE on undisclosed investment surrendered during the course of survey proceedings?
