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 : Reassessment quashed by ITAT Bangalore as failure to pass a speaking order on objections violated mandatory procedure under Sectio...
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...
ITAT ruled that without rejecting books of account or disproving sales, addition of aggregate cash deposits is unsustainable. Detailed reconciliations established nexus with business receipts.
The Tribunal deleted addition under Section 69C, holding that payments made by company on behalf of director were properly explained through ledger records and imprest arrangement.
The ITAT reaffirmed that Section 2(22)(e) cannot extend the definition of shareholder to a concern receiving the loan. The deemed dividend, if attracted, must be taxed in the hands of the substantial shareholder alone.
The AO added expenditure based solely on a mistaken audit report entry. The ITAT deleted the addition after confirming from the concerned party that no transaction occurred.
The Tribunal held that amounts reflected in regular books and disclosed in returns before search cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure. Section 69C was found inapplicable as no out-of-books spending was established.
The Tribunal emphasized that approval from the correct specified authority is mandatory where reopening exceeds three years. Failure to comply rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction note. As the mandatory requirement of year-wise satisfaction was not met, the entire assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that failure to indicate the precise charge in a Section 274 notice renders penalty proceedings unsustainable. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned a 298-day delay in filing appeal, holding that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. It deleted additions on exempt gratuity and commuted pension, ruling they cannot be taxed as salary.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A applies only when the assessee is found to be the owner of money or assets. Mere suspicion or digital communication cannot replace proof of possession or ownership.
