Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
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 : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a registered sale deed without corroborative evidence is not incriminating material and cannot support additions in...
Income Tax : ITAT held that multiplying a seized figure without supporting evidence was unjustified and restricted the Section 69 addition to t...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that proceedings initiated under the old Section 153C framework after the Finance Act, 2021 amendments were leg...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that omission to mention the exact charging provision did not vitiate the assessment where unexplained cash and bull...
Once the transaction is found to be recorded in the regular books of account, provisions of section 69 do not apply and the CIT(A) had, therefore, rightly deleted the addition which calls for no interference.
As per section 68 of the Income Tax Act, any sum found credited in the books of a taxpayer, for which he does not explain the nature and source or the explanation provided by him is not satisfactory by the Assessing Officer is termed as ‘Cash Credit‘. Other provisions to be kept in mind with […]
Jaidayal Prannath Kapur Vs CIT (Madras High Court) The assessment for the Assessment Year under consideration, AY 2002-03, was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. From the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order, dated 19.12.2007, we find that, initially, the assessee did not extend full cooperation […]
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.
