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 : This guide explains how unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and related provisions can attract steep taxation under Section ...
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 : The ITAT Mumbai held that Section 69C cannot be invoked where expenditure is duly recorded in the books and its source is fully ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Guwahati held that additions could not be sustained where the transactions related to a separate partnership firm with a diff...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an untested third-party statement, without supporting evidence or cross-examination, cannot form the sole basis...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that repayment of the entire loan with TDS-compliant interest payments undermined the allegation that the loan...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that loose sheets and estimates alone cannot justify an addition under Section 69B without independent corrobora...
Income Tax : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
The issue was whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases could be disallowed under Section 69C. ITAT Mumbai held that in the absence of corroborative evidence, only the profit element can be taxed, restricting the addition to 6%.
This ruling clarifies that repayment of loan with interest, coupled with documentary proof, negates allegations of unexplained cash credit. Mere suspicion without defects in evidence cannot sustain an addition.
The Tribunal ruled that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers did not reply to Section 133(6) notices. When books are audited, evidence is produced, and sales are accepted, disallowance under Section 69C is unsustainable.
Alleged additions for suppressed sales, disallowances, and capital gains were rendered void once the revision order was quashed. The case underscores the doctrine of consequential invalidity.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid as the statutory sanction under Section 151 was granted mechanically. Mere use of the word Approved does not show application of mind and vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening was granted mechanically and without independent application of mind, as required under Section 151. An undated and non-speaking approval vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that treating a belated return as non est is legally unsustainable. Absence of a Section 143(2) notice invalidates the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal examined whether a single satisfaction note could sustain reassessment proceedings for multiple years under section 153C. It held that a composite satisfaction is valid when based on common seized material spanning several assessment years.
The Tribunal held that a continuously maintained ledger found during search constituted reliable evidence. Additions for unexplained expenditure under section 69C were sustained based on corroborated diary entries.
The issue was whether a WhatsApp image from a third party could justify a cash addition. The Tribunal held the digital evidence inadmissible due to lack of lawful collection and chain of custody, deleting the addition.
