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 Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment proceedings was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
TAT Mumbai held that additions under Sections 68 and 69C could not be sustained where the Revenue failed to establish any connection between the assessee and alleged price-rigging operators. The Tribunal found that the transactions were supported by demat records, banking documents, and stock exchange evidence. The LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) was restored.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry as required under Section 149(1)(b). The ruling underscores the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the taxpayer had furnished complete documentary evidence of purchase and sale of shares. The ruling emphasizes that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment based solely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry is invalid. The ruling emphasizes that borrowed satisfaction cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
The Tribunal emphasized that once sales are entered in regular books and supported by stock records, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove them false. In the absence of such proof, Section 68 could not be invoked.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Sections 68 and 69C could not be sustained where the Revenue relied only on generalized investigation findings. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the assessee to any accommodation entry arrangement and deleted both additions.
The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid where the alleged escaped income was less than ₹50 lakh. The consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that an investigation report against a supplier is only a starting point for inquiry and not conclusive proof against the assessee. The key takeaway is that additions require independent evidence relating to the assessee’s own transactions
Where assessee substantiated purchase, holding and sale of shares of YICL through documentary evidence, DEMAT records, contract notes, STT payments and banking transactions, and Revenue failed to establish any nexus between assessee and alleged price-rigging operators, exemption under section 10(38) could not be denied merely on suspicion or penny-stock allegations.
