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...
The conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has purchased material from some other dealers but quantitative reconciliation of the stock was duly done by the assessee of the sale and purchase and hence the profit element in this accommodation entries are to be added to the income cannot be faulted .
The assessee, a civil contractor, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 25.09.2010 declaring income of Rs. 30,65,277/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) vide order dated 14.03.2013 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 25,11,68,150/- in view of the following additions/disallowances
Simply because the Assessee could not produce the dealers, the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer could have made further investigations to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions.
Fact that direct one to one relationship between purchases and sales have not been established, I am of the view that estimation of 12.5% as profit embedded in impugned purchases shown from these tainted parties and adding the same to the total income returned, would meet the ends of justice.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Provestment Securities Pvt. Ltd. that we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the question whether an investment had been made or not is a matter of fact and the same cannot be presumed.
M/s. Palco Distributors Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Only premise of the AO for making addition is that assessee could not produce purchase bills for a sum of Rs.21,72,083/- having 526 items. We find that the items are properly recorded means the assessee has explained the source of acquisition
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s Command Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. that when all the purchases are accounted in the regular books of accounts, it means the source is explained and the provisions of section 69C are not applicable, as there was no unaccounted expenditure.
ACIT vs Advert Communication ( ITAT Delhi) 1.If addition has to be made for bogus purchases then sales should also be disturbed ; 2.Until and unless both parties don’t confirm the cessation of liability then addition cannot be made u/s 41(1); 3.
In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Vaghasia Associates, ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because some estimated labour payment was written on the projected profit & loss account, the addition for unexplained expenditure cannot be made.
The assessee firm is a builder and developer and is assessed in the status of AOP. During the year under consideration, the assessee was developing a residential project which involved construction of 182 flats. The assessee did not disclose any income out of these projects on the plea that it was following ‘project completion method’ and offered income on these in AY 2010-11
