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 emphasized that section 69C applies only to unexplained or unrecorded expenditure; recorded educational expenses cannot be arbitrarily disallowed.
The ITAT Kolkata dismisses the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that a ₹1.59 crore addition for alleged bogus sales was unfounded, as the company provided substantial evidence including e-way bills and bank statements.
ITAT Delhi held that applicability of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act without initially fixing the addition under any of the charging provisions i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
The ITAT Mumbai has ruled in favor of Ankit Gems, deleting a tax addition for alleged bogus purchases. The court found no evidence and placed the burden of proof on the tax department.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were explained as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and household savings, and deleted the addition of ₹10,46,500 made under section 69A.
Mere involvement in a flagged scrip, in absence of concrete evidence of manipulation or unaccounted funds, could not justify taxing bonafide transactions. Therefore, the additions under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore condones a 349-day delay in a tax appeal, citing the assessee’s illiteracy and issues with his former auditor’s email. The case is sent back for fresh assessment.
The Delhi ITAT has quashed a reassessment based on “borrowed satisfaction,” ruling that the tax department acted without independent inquiry and on suspicion, not tangible material.
The Delhi ITAT has remanded an ex-parte tax assessment, directing the AO to re-examine additions for unexplained investment and creditors after giving the taxpayer a fresh hearing.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeals and upheld the assessments with the additions. It was held that search assessments were legally valid, JCIT had granted proper approval after due consideration, and the additions were based on incriminating material found during the search.
