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 the disallowance of expenditure is not sustainable as the evidence and material produced by the assessee establish that it had incurred the expenditure as claimed. Thus, findings of ITAT cannot be perverse.
Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s 68 is sustained. Since, addition u/s 68 has been upheld, the expenditure incurred to earn the above sums are to be added u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act made towards penny stock deleted since assessee duly discharged the onus cast upon him and there is no adverse order/penalty order against the Assessee.
Since the Revenue has not brought anything on record to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A), we don’t find any reason to interfere with his order. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that non-satisfaction of conditions for reopening assessment u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act doesn’t prohibit AO from taking recourse u/s. 147. Thus, reopening u/s. 147 based on information from investigation wing justified.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on protective basis not justified since assessee established genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of entity from which share application money is received.
The present appeal is preferred by the revenue. The only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting addition made by the AO towards unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act in respect of trade payable settled outside books of accounts.
Addition of unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 was unjustified as all the above transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and there was no undisclosed cash credit involved in these transactions.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest expense by treating the same as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act needs re-verification. Accordingly, matter send back to the file of jurisdictional AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that AO and CIT(A) confirmed the addition since there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Thus, one more opportunity granted to the assessee to present its case however with a direction to deposit INR 2000 to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
