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...
Interest under Section 234B cannot be levied on Section 115BBE-assessed income for resident senior citizens exempt from advance tax, as per ITAT and CBDT guidance.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of LTCG and commission under Section 69C, affirming that the Revenue cannot deny exemption under Section 10(38) based on a general investigation into Kushal Tradelink without establishing the assessees direct involvement in the accommodation entries. This ruling confirms that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, the Revenue must provide contrary material to sustain the addition.
The ITAT ruled against mechanically confirming a large addition under Section 69C, stating that tax authorities must genuinely distinguish between procedural discrepancies and fraudulent inflation. The case was sent back, underscoring that documentary proof is essential before penalizing for purchase differences.
The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) cannot set aside a reassessment order framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as the limited power to remand only applies to best-judgment assessments under Section 144. The Tribunal sent the penny stock LTCG case back, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on its merits.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed source of income cannot be sustained merely because this amount is not reported in Tax Audit Report since transaction is duly recorded in books of accounts.
ITAT Delhi dismisses Revenue appeal, holding an investor’s LTCG from stock exchange transactions as genuine, reaffirming “suspicion is not substitute for proof.”
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, ruled against the revenue’s additions of unaccounted capitation fees and cash loan interest under Sections 69A and 69C against the Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust.
ITAT Delhi deletes Rs.9.99 lakh unexplained expenditure addition, ruling that the Revenue cannot sustain an addition under Sec. 69C based purely on suspicion of cash handling logistics.
ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment, deleting Rs. 85 lakh Sec 69C addition. AO cannot travel beyond recorded reasons if the original reason for reopening is not sustained.
Late Mahabir Prasad (through L/H Mrs. Parul Kansaria) Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT Bangalore Restricts Additions in Search Assessment – Statement Alone Not Incriminating- No Addition in Concluded Years Without Incriminating Material- Unaccounted Sales – Only GP Taxable, Not Entire Turnover Bangalore ITAT dealt with additions arising out of search proceedings in the A-One Steel […]
