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...
Delhi High Court held that no provision under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSV Act] empowers Designated Authority to reopen concluded assessment after issuance of final certificate u/s. 5(1) of the DTVSV Act.
The date on which AO passed the above order was 28.11.2019; therefore, re-opening of case for AY.2011-12 is time barred as per the clear provisions of section 150(2) of the Act. Hence, the direction of the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed.
Entire cash deposits made during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained credit and a reasonable addition of 20% of total cash deposit would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
CIT (A) erred in treating the loan of Rs.90.52 crores u/s 69A/69B when the show cause notice of enhancement was with reference to section 69 and there were neither any investments which were not recorded in the books of account nor is there any such finding by the CIT(A).
In a recent ruling ITAT Mumbai have held that genuineness of sale and purchase of share through stock exchange platform, can not be doubted if AO failed to establish link between assesssee and report of investigation wing.
Assessee filed its return of income for the 2018-19 AY declaring a total of ₹12,33,640 and assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues of “imports and exports”, and various notices were issued and served upon assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the source of cash is taxed, it cannot be further taxed as unexplained cash expenditure. Hence, addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act for cash payments deleted.
The Investigation Wing had carried out investigation with regard to the price manipulations and generation of bogus long term capital gains in number of stocks, classified as penny stocks.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 271AAB of the Income Tax Act imposable even in case of voluntary disclosure or declaration or surrender per se of income. Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue allowed.
The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. AO observed that the assessee had also from other sources and also from agricultural activities carried out during the year
