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...
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.
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.
