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...
ITAT Delhi held that the issuance of notice u/s. 148 based on cryptic reasons combined with a mechanical approval of the Pr.CIT u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act do not pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Thus, reassessment quashed.
ITAT Mumbai grants partial relief to Ramniklal & Sons in the bogus purchase case, directing reassessment based on judicial precedents.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Income Tax Act not imposable as AO failed to link additional income disclosed by the assessee with the incriminating material found during search. Thus, penalty u/s. 271AAB deleted.
Assessees face 78% tax and 6% penalty for unexplained investments or expenditures under Sections 69 to 69C of Income Tax Act if details are not satisfactorily explained.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of purchases and restricting the amount of purchases to 12.50% without examining the documentary evidences produced by the assessee is unjustified. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO with direction to decide afresh.
Article explains how surrendered income is treated under I.T Act, particularly focusing on applicability of Sections 68 to 69D and related provisions.
Bombay High Court upholds ITAT ruling in PCIT Vs SVD Resins, focusing on the legitimacy of purchase transactions and tax implications under Section 69C.
Bombay High Court held that half-hearted approach on the part of AO to make additions on the issue of bogus purchase would not be conducive. Bogus purchase addition also cannot be on the basis of superficial inquiry.
Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from penalty and prosecution, by accepting the explanation ‘in the spirit of settlement’ cannot be faulted.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, in absence of independent application of mind, invocation of revisionary provisions by CIT unsustainable.
