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 Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Jaipur held that surrendered income during survey cannot be treated as unexplained income or money u/s. 69 & 69A of the Income Tax Act and tax in accordance with provisions of section 115BBE. The same has to be assessed to tax under ‘business income’.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that when sales are accepted and only purchases are proven bogus (due to non-existent suppliers/cancelled GST), only the profit element embedded in the purchases can be taxed, not the entire Rs.69C expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the application of the assessee’s own 1.39% Gross Profit rate on the bogus purchases, rejecting the AO’s arbitrary 25% addition.
The ITAT ruled that loose, uncorroborated diaries maintained by a third party are dumb documents and cannot be the sole basis for major tax additions or the denial of Section 11 exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion is not a substitute for proof, and denying Section 11 requires concrete evidence of a violation under Section 13.
Interest under Section 234B cannot be levied on Section 115BBE-assessed income for resident senior citizens exempt from advance tax, as per ITAT and CBDT guidance.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of LTCG and commission under Section 69C, affirming that the Revenue cannot deny exemption under Section 10(38) based on a general investigation into Kushal Tradelink without establishing the assessees direct involvement in the accommodation entries. This ruling confirms that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, the Revenue must provide contrary material to sustain the addition.
The ITAT ruled against mechanically confirming a large addition under Section 69C, stating that tax authorities must genuinely distinguish between procedural discrepancies and fraudulent inflation. The case was sent back, underscoring that documentary proof is essential before penalizing for purchase differences.
The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) cannot set aside a reassessment order framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as the limited power to remand only applies to best-judgment assessments under Section 144. The Tribunal sent the penny stock LTCG case back, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on its merits.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed source of income cannot be sustained merely because this amount is not reported in Tax Audit Report since transaction is duly recorded in books of accounts.
ITAT Delhi dismisses Revenue appeal, holding an investor’s LTCG from stock exchange transactions as genuine, reaffirming “suspicion is not substitute for proof.”
