Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : Courts have clarified that purchases cannot be disallowed without proper evidence. Genuine transactions supported by documents can...
Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT deleted a 69C unexplained expenditure addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that when corresponding sales are ac...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest cannot be finalized when the validity of underlying loans is still under appeal. I...
Income Tax : The issue was whether purchases could be treated as bogus based on investigation reports. ITAT held that when documentary evidence...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when supported by invoices, bank payments, and GST records. It ruled t...
Income Tax : The issue was whether income from hybrid seed production on leased land qualifies as agricultural income. The Tribunal held that o...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment is valid without proper service of notice. The Tribunal held that absence of valid service make...
The key question was whether STR-based information can trigger harsh taxation under Section 115BBE. The ITAT held that without concrete evidence of non-genuine transactions, such additions cannot stand. Both reopening and tax addition were annulled.
The Tribunal held that a Section 148 notice issued after three years was invalid because the escaped income was below ₹50 lakh, making the reopening beyond limitation.
ITAT Pune sent back the issue of alleged bogus purchases for A.Y. 2017-18, directing AO to examine GST closure letters, transportation evidence, and other supporting documents to determine genuineness.
The Tribunal quashed additions for bogus purchases, cash seizures, and transfer pricing adjustments, affirming the AOP’s unified management and correct taxation at the consortium level.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was legally sound and unaffected by arguments based on 153C or Notification 18/2022. Still, it directed a full rehearing because the appellate authority issued non-speaking orders without examining the merits.
ITAT Hyderabad held that verifying documents of only one party cannot substitute verification of all transactions under Section 69C. The matter is remanded to the AO for de novo scrutiny of purchase bills, ledger accounts, transportation memos, and payment proofs for all thirteen parties.
ITAT Raipur set aside a Rs. 14.73 lakh addition under Section 69C after finding the CIT(A) misinterpreted the assessee’s wife’s financial capacity, affirming proper documentation supports legitimate expenditure.
ITAT Delhi set aside reassessment because notices under Sections 148, 148A(b), and 148A(d) lacked digital or manual signatures. Procedural lapses can invalidate reassessments entirely.
The ITAT ruled a reassessment under Section 147 invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to issue the mandatory Section 143(2) notice. compliance with notice requirements is crucial for valid reassessment.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that detailed records, including Demat statements and contract notes, proved the genuineness of penny-stock transactions, nullifying additions under Sections 68 and 69C.
