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...
ITO v. Raj Tools Centre PAP (ITAT Mumbai) Appeals is against addition of ₹.2,60,603/-, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. As per the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Authorities, the aforementioned parties were found to be involved in giving accommodation entries only without actually supplying the goods. The logical inference is […]
A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) The issue before us relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found short with the assessee. Cash short, at the most represents expenses / outgoings out of cash available with the assessee not accounted for in the books of the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT is correct in restricting the disallowance u/s 69C against bogus purchase at rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by CIT(A) on account of bogus purchases at rate of 12.5% of purchase u/s 69C is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in confirming addition u/s 69C of the Act on account of unexplained purchases made during the year, calculated on the basis of peak credit?
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that provisions of section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable for assessee?
Whether the CIT(A) is correct in restricting the addition u/s 69C for bogus purchases to 12.5% against the total purchase disallowance made by AO?
Comparison between section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B and section 69C: -So far as section 68 is concerned, the onus is wholly upon the Assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, the words used show that before any of these sections are invoked, the condition precedent as to existence of investment, expenditure, etc. must be conclusively established by material on record/ evidence.
Background To begin with, the unexplained income simply means any income for which assessee do not have valid explanation about the nature and / or source or the assessing officer is not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. Under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) broadly, the term ‘unexplained income’ is […]
Even if the purchases made from the parties in question are to be treated as bogus, it does not necessarily mean that entire amount should be disallowed and that no benefit should be given to the Respondent-Assessee.
