Income Tax : Discover the tax implications and rates for undisclosed sources of income under Sections 68-69D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn...
Income Tax : Explore the heavy tax implications on taxpayers for unexplained investments and expenditures under Income Tax Act sections 69 to 6...
Income Tax : Explore sections 68 to 69D of Income Tax Act 1961, covering unexplained cash credits, investments, and more. Learn about legal pro...
Income Tax : Explore the differences between income tax Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C in India, their taxability, and implications. Understand...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : Explore the detailed ITAT Mumbai order analysis of Yogesh P. Thakkar vs DCIT, focusing on disputed long-term capital gains and com...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in DCIT vs. Dilip B. Jiwrajka covering appeals against additions of unexplained income...
Income Tax : Explore the case of Shaily Prince Goyal vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) regarding cash credits from penny stock sales. Detailed analysis of S...
Income Tax : Explore the Delhi High Court's judgment on ITSC's conclusive nature for AY, assessing reassessment under Section 148 of the Income...
Income Tax : Discover the ITAT Chennai verdict on Santhilal Jain Vijay Kumar Vs ITO, addressing taxation on excess stock and unexplained marria...
Dy. CIT Vs. Fagioli India (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In this case assessing officers main allegation is that two parties from whom appellant made purchases are involved in providing accommodation entries as per the list published by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. On the other hand, assessee has furnished certain evidences in the form of purchase […]
It is held that as the provision of Section 69C of the Act is not mandatory in nature, the Assessing Authority has full discretion either to add or not to add the unexplained expenditure in the income of the assessee based upon sound judicial principles
Assessee has paid the service tax amount through banking channel. Challans of the payment of tax were placed on record before the assessing authority. The source of alleged service tax amount is well explained in the books of account.
Assessee’s contention that adding the entire amount of bogus purchases would give a completely distorted figure and the gross profit would be higher than the total turnover. Such bogus purchases were for off-setting the purchases from producers and agriculturists directly who would not have the billing facility. Only question seriously paused before us was, was the Tribunal justified in adopting the gross profit rate of 8% as against 25% adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals)?
If the AO has not rejected the books of accounts and has only doubted the genuineness of the suppliers but not the genuineness of the purchases and if the payments are made by account payee cheques, s. 69C is not attracted. S. 69C cannot be applied where all purchase and sales transactions are part of regular books of accounts. The basic precondition for invoking s. 69C is that the expenditure incurred by the assessee should be out of books of accounts
If the unaccounted expenditure incurred is from the on money received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition u/s 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the ‘on money’ which can be considered for the purpose of taxation.
The Tribunal considered the merits and once again, at great length. The particular argument revolving around the statement of Dilip Dherai and his answer to question No. 24 was also considered in paragraph 21 of the impugned order. Then, in paragraph 22, the Tribunal refers to the additions made under Section 69C.
Where assessee had sufficiently explained the circumstances under which the payments were made to the truck drivers in cash, for transport of items and no doubt was raised over genuineness of the payments and the payees were identifiable; no dis allowance under section. 40A(3) was warranted.
Mere defect in the notice u/s 274 do not vitiates the penalty proceedings and no prejudice was caused to the assessee by non- marking of appropriate clause. Addition for Bogus purchases cannot be made under Section 69C as ‘unexplained expenditure’ if purchase are duly disclosed and payments are made through banking channels. The fact that the sellers are not traceable and the assessee surrendered the bogus purchases does not justify levy of penalty.
Requirement of Section 153C of the Act cannot be ignored at the alter of suspicion. The Revenue has to strictly comply with Section 153C of the Act. We are of the view that non satisfaction of the condition precedent viz. the seized document must belong to the respondent – assessee is a jurisdictional issue and non satisfaction thereof would make the entire proceedings taken thereunder null and void.
