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 Tribunal quashed the reassessment after finding that the assessee had already filed the return under Section 139 before issuance of the notice. The key takeaway is that jurisdiction under Section 147 cannot be assumed on erroneous facts.
The Delhi ITAT held that repeated non-compliance with statutory notices transformed the reassessment into a best judgment assessment in substance. Consequently, the CIT(A) was justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order after finding that the reopening of assessment proceeded on incorrect facts regarding alleged exempt income from penny stock transactions. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
ITAT Delhi confirmed disallowance of a Section 80GGC claim after relying on investigation findings that the political party operated as an accommodation entry provider. The ruling emphasizes substance over form in tax deduction claims.
The Mumbai ITAT held that Section 263 revision was valid where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary enquiries into suspected bogus purchases. The ruling emphasizes that inadequate verification can render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.
This guide explains how unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and related provisions can attract steep taxation under Section 115BBE. It highlights the conditions for invoking these provisions and the consequences of failing to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of funds.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A cannot be mechanically invoked without establishing that the deposits constitute unexplained income. Evidence of genuine business activity justified taxation only of the profit component.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and books of account are not rejected, the entire amount of disputed purchases cannot be added to income. It directed the Assessing Officer to tax only the profit element embedded in such purchases following settled judicial principles.
Addition of ₹90 lakh made under section 69A towards alleged cash payment for purchase of property as well as the addition made under section 69C on account of alleged unaccounted purchases was deleted as additions based solely on third-party documents, without independent corroboration or evidence directly linking the transactions to assessee were not sustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and absence of direct incriminating material supported the assessee’s LTCG claim.
