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...
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.
The ITAT held that the alleged bogus purchases could not stand when the assessee produced complete documentary evidence showing genuine procurement and consumption. With no contrary evidence from the AO, the 69C addition was removed.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when books are accepted and payments are made through banking channels. The addition under section 69C was deleted due to lack of concrete evidence.
The addition was based on a loose paper that did not match Yes Bank loan details or HMA ledger figures. The Tribunal upheld that such uncorroborated papers cannot sustain a 69C addition, especially when business had not yet commenced. The takeaway is that tax additions must be backed by verifiable evidence, not estimations on loose sheets.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 jurisdiction is barred under Explanation 1(c) if the matter is under appeal before CIT(A). AO’s assessment, including enquiry into statements and ledgers, was found proper. PCIT’s revision attempting to tax full Rs.1.59 Cr as bogus purchase was quashed.
The Tribunal held that once purchases are proven bogus, the entire amount must be added back, rejecting the CIT(A)’s 8% profit estimation. The ruling confirms that unexplained expenditure cannot be allowed under section 69C.
