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...
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?
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.
