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...
In a recent case, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable when the source of income is disclosed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as present case doesn’t involve invocation of any of the sections i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Amritsar held that in case of non-cooperation during conduct of special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, the time limit to do the same can be extended at the end of the department.
In Pavuluri Sylendra Nellore Vs ITO case, ITAT Hyderabad confirms addition under section 69C due to unexplained source of credit card payment.
ITAT Jodhpur upholds CIT(A)’s decision, negating the AO’s addition of Rs. 1.62 crore under Section 69C for Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi. The judgment clarifies all transactions were through banking, dismissing the alleged unexplained expenditure and unsecured loans as baseless.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of sundry creditors u/s 68/69C of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as department failed to prove that the sundry creditors are bogus.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on some dummy name without incriminating material reflecting name of the assessee is unjustified.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once additional income offered during survey was simply accepted and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without invoking provisions of section 115BBE. Then, provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked via rectification as per section 154.
ITAT Delhi held that addition sustained as onus to prove genuineness of the transaction is not proved by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act simply on the basis of scribbling note without any other oral/ documentary evidences is unwarranted and unsustainable.
