Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
Income Tax : A Comprehensive Analysis of Undisclosed Incomes under Sections 68 to 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Taxation of these Incomes Un...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules unaccounted customer deposits, with traceable identities and commercial substance, are liabilities, not income ...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed...
Income Tax : Madras High Court held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid because the Assessing Officer had effectively ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that prolonged non-payment of interest and repeated amendments to loan agreements justified benchmarking AE loans...
Income Tax : The ITAT Hyderabad held that additions for alleged cash payments cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party seized doc...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey had direct nexus with business operations. It ruled that such income shoul...
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey, when arising from regular business activity and disclosed in accounts, cannot be taxed as unexplained investment under Section 69B.
Only income supported by cash actually found during search could attract penal consequences. The balance amount, unsupported by incriminating material, was held outside the scope of Section 271AAB.
The issue was whether entire bank cash deposits could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal ruled that gross receipts alone cannot be treated as income without examining business facts. Key takeaway: turnover ≠ income under section 69B.
The Revenue sustained addition by assuming 50% of cash withdrawals were used for household expenses. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion-based estimates cannot replace evidence and granted substantial relief.
The ITAT held that unrecorded sales cannot be taxed in full under Section 69A. Only the profit element at a reasonable GP rate is assessable as business income.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 additions as the Revenue relied only on uncorroborated statements and pen-drive data from third parties, violating natural justice. Suspicion alone cannot justify tax additions.
The Tribunal accepted that the 7.5% rebate was a pre-negotiated commercial discount and not an unaccounted cash return. As the seized loose sheets were unverified and unsupported by witnesses, the ₹9.06 crore addition failed.
The issue involved a common sanction letter covering multiple assessees and years, issued on the same day the AO sought approval. ITAT found this composite approval inconsistent with judicial mandates requiring individualized scrutiny. As a result, the assessment was declared void ab initio, making all additions infructuous.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a section 263 revision cannot proceed if the AO issuing section 148 notice lacks territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to first decide jurisdictional validity.
ITAT Jabalpur held that CIT(A) cannot blindly follow PCIT directions under section 263. Appellate authorities must independently consider evidence and objections before confirming additions.
