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 Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and completed the assessmen...
Income Tax : The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by producing confirmations, PAN, bank stateme...
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 : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted by CIT(A) since cash deposit during demonetization duly reflected as cash sales and there was no abnormal spike in sales during demonetization.
The ITAT held that the PCIT incorrectly invoked Section 263 to substitute the AO’s plausible view, ruling that a business disallowance under Section 37(1) does not automatically become deemed income under Section 69C.
The ITAT Kolkata upheld the deletion of a ₹2.5 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that the assessee provided full documentary proof of the loan’s identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Tribunal emphasized that once the primary onus is discharged, the AO must conduct an independent inquiry rather than relying on an unverified Investigation Wing report.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act impermissible since based solely on change of opinion without any new tangible material. Further, even on merits royalty payment represents a legitimate business expenditure allowable u/s. 37(1).
ITAT Jaipur held that Rs. 8.9 lakh surrendered during a survey and included in books as business income cannot be taxed under section 69C or 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee has duly discharged the primary onus. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since specific limb of Section 270A(9) leading to under-reporting of income or mis-reporting of income is not specified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed.
ITAT Indore deleted a Rs.1.46 crore addition made under Section 69C via rectification, ruling that the AO wrongly invoked the section. The commission payments reported in the audit form were a pass-through on behalf of clients, not the assessee’s claimed business expenditure, meaning the deduction of TDS didn’t imply an unrecorded expense.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the deletion of a ₹65 lakh addition under Section 68 was proper because the taxpayer established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal accepted that the loans were received and repaid through banking channels, backed by confirmations, bank statements, and audited financials.
The ITAT deleted an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in property. The tribunal held that authorities couldn’t ignore the sale deed and bank statements proving the co-owner (husband) made the payments in a preceding year, even in ex-parte proceedings.
