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 : ITAT ruled that appellate powers under Section 251 are confined to assessment year under appeal. Directions to reopen completed as...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee after noting that audited financials, PAN, bank statements, ITRs, confirmations, and ...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that only the actual period lost during the limitation period can be excluded under Explanation-1 to Secti...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that merely declaring presumptive income under Section 44AD does not exempt taxpayers from explaining massive ba...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must establish a direct connection between seized material and the assessee’s taxable income...
ITAT Kolkata held that entire bogus purchases must be added under Section 69C where the supplier was proved to be a paper entity and no evidence of actual delivery of goods existed. The ruling reiterates that bank payments and invoices alone cannot establish genuineness.
DCIT Vs Shikha Indrakumar Agrawal (ITAT Nagpur) The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld deletion of additions made under Sections 68 and 69C in respect of long-term capital gains claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) on sale of listed shares. The assessee had purchased 24,000 shares of […]
ITAT Jaipur held that additions for unexplained sales and investment could not survive once the CESTAT rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted additions made under Sections 69A and 69C.
Mumbai ITAT restored appeals dismissed for 179-day delay after observing that the assessee had relied bona fide on his Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal granted another opportunity in the interest of justice and fair play.
The ITAT ruled that accepted sales necessarily imply corresponding purchases, even if sourced through the grey market. The addition was therefore restricted to estimated profit instead of the full purchase amount.
The Mumbai ITAT held that no separate addition for alleged bogus purchases can be made where the assessee has already disclosed a higher gross profit on disputed transactions. The Tribunal relied on Bombay High Court rulings limiting additions only to differential GP.
The case addressed whether entries in third-party seized documents can justify additions. The ITAT ruled they cannot without independent corroboration. It reinforces that suspicion alone cannot sustain tax additions.
The Tribunal held that return of advances cannot be taxed under Section 68. The key takeaway is that explained transactions supported by records cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification and corroboration, such evidence is insufficient and proceedings are invalid.
ITAT ruled that on-money represents business receipts and not pure income. Only profit portion can be taxed, rejecting full addition. The decision reinforces distinction between receipts and income.
