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 : The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest cannot be finalized when the validity of underlying loans is still under appeal. I...
Income Tax : The issue was whether purchases could be treated as bogus based on investigation reports. ITAT held that when documentary evidence...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when supported by invoices, bank payments, and GST records. It ruled t...
Income Tax : The issue was whether income from hybrid seed production on leased land qualifies as agricultural income. The Tribunal held that o...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment is valid without proper service of notice. The Tribunal held that absence of valid service make...
Assessee had strongly contended that he was unaware of who Shri Kaustubh Latke and Shri Shailesh Patil are, since they were not connected with him or Rucha Group.
Bombay HC affirms 100% addition under S. 69C for unproven purchases, reversing tribunal’s 12.5% estimation. Details on the ruling.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided for amount of understated/ suppressed net profit. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and penalty upheld.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition, treating share application money as unexplained income, based on surmises and conjectures without making proper verification of facts with relevant materials and evidences is not sustainable in law.
Bombay High Court upholds AO’s addition for unverified bogus purchases in PCIT vs. Kanak Impex. Decision based on Section 69C and apex court precedents.
Overview of Income Tax Sections 69A, 69B, on unexplained income, investments, and expenditures. Key cases and interpretations included.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the unaccounted receipts from the sale of properties are subjected to taxation as part of the capital gains computation, the related unaccounted expenditures stand explained and cannot be taxed separately as unexplained expenses.
ITAT Nagpur allows Revenue’s appeal in ACIT Vs Unique Realities Builders & Developers, validating Section 153C proceedings and Section 69A income additions.
A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s case on 14.11.2019. AO observed that during the course of search action, a pen drive was found from the cabin of the Head-Cashier.
DCIT Vs Triton Hotels and Resorts Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, adjudicated appeals in the case of DCIT Vs Triton Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The matter primarily pertained to unexplained expenditures assessed under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year (AY) 2020-21. Cross-appeals were filed […]
