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 central issue was the validity of a reassessment that led to additions for bogus purchases and unexplained cash. The ITAT confirmed the entire reassessment was void because the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under S 143(2), affirming the deletion of all additions.
Delhi ITAT deleted a 69C unexplained expenditure addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that when corresponding sales are accepted and payments made via banking channels, the purchase cannot be disallowed without tangible proof of manipulation.
ITAT Delhi set aside a non-speaking order by CIT(A) in a ₹34.82 lakh bogus purchase case, directing de novo adjudication and allowing cross-examination on alleged accommodation entries.
This ruling clarifies that cash deposits during the demonetization period cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 68 when they are fully reflected in the business’s accepted books and sales. The ITAT emphasized that the AO failed to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) before making the addition, thereby deleting the entire demand.
The Delhi ITAT sustained a Rs.42.98 lakh addition for unexplained expenditure found in a seized diary, ruling that the entries proved a sufficient nexus to the assessee under Section 292C. However, the Tribunal provided partial relief by directing the lower tax rate under the pre-amendment Section 115BBE to be applied for AY 2015-16.
The ITAT ruled that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 by relying on unverified external information (e.g., SEBI data and license suspension claims) to label purchases as bogus, without providing this information to the assessee for rebuttal. The tribunal deleted the revisionary order, confirming that the PCIT acted illegally by presuming facts and ignoring the documentary proof of purchase genuineness.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, upheld the addition of ₹19.06 Cr (AY 2011-12) and ₹17.53 Cr (AY 2012-13) to Raheja Developers Limited’s income. The ITAT confirmed the finding that the sale of 22 shops to M/s Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) was a bogus transaction involving a shell company to route the developer’s own unaccounted funds back into its books as sale consideration.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
The ITAT Delhi partly deleted an addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that since the books of account were not rejected and the profit element from corresponding sales was already offered to tax, taxing 12.5% of the bogus purchase value constituted double taxation. The Tribunal finally restricted the addition to an agreed-upon amount of Rs.4,00,000.
The ITAT voided multiple search assessments because the statutory approval under Section 153D was found to be mechanical and without independent application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized that a single, proforma approval for 42 assessment orders across multiple assessees, lacking specific facts or reasoning, renders the entire assessment void ab initio.
