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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, upheld the addition of ₹19.06 Cr (AY 2011-12) and ₹17.53 Cr (AY 2012-13) to Raheja Developers Limited’s income. The ITAT confirmed the finding that the sale of 22 shops to M/s Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) was a bogus transaction involving a shell company to route the developer’s own unaccounted funds back into its books as sale consideration.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
The ITAT Delhi partly deleted an addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that since the books of account were not rejected and the profit element from corresponding sales was already offered to tax, taxing 12.5% of the bogus purchase value constituted double taxation. The Tribunal finally restricted the addition to an agreed-upon amount of Rs.4,00,000.
The ITAT voided multiple search assessments because the statutory approval under Section 153D was found to be mechanical and without independent application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized that a single, proforma approval for 42 assessment orders across multiple assessees, lacking specific facts or reasoning, renders the entire assessment void ab initio.
The ITAT ruled that seized parallel Tally data, reflecting higher sales and income, constitutes reliable incriminating material, validating assessments made under Section 153A. The tribunal sustained additions for higher gross profit and unexplained credits after the taxpayer failed to disprove the parallel records’ accuracy, reinforcing the presumption under Section 292C.
The Mumbai ITAT restricted the disallowance for purchases from hawala parties to 25% of the bogus purchase amount, affirming the material was genuinely received and sold, despite fictitious invoices. The ruling relies on the Gujarat High Court’s precedent in Vijay Proteins.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee’s appeal, remanding the Section 69C addition for verification and deleting the Section 80C disallowance, emphasizing submission of proper evidence and opportunity of hearing.
Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period and without sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner was invalid, following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal.
The Revenue treated a documented sale of gold, with payment received via RTGS, as a bogus accommodation entry solely based on the buyer’s failure to reply to a section 133(6) notice. The Tribunal held that concrete evidence, including the full bank trail, stock records, and invoice, outweighs a general investigation report or the non-cooperation of a third party, and deleted the unjustified addition under section 69A.
The ITAT instantly dismissed the Revenues appeal because it only challenged the merits of additions, not the CIT(A)s core finding that the reassessment notice was time-barred. When the foundation of the reassessment is quashed and that ruling isnt appealed, all subsequent additions automatically collapse.
