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 Ahmedabad held that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by producing confirmations, PAN, bank stateme...
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 : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
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.
ITAT Mumbai held that merely because assessee has dealt with suspected scrips, addition u/s 69C is not justified as purchase and sale of scrips were through recognized stock exchange and payments were through banking channel only.
ITAT Kolkata held that provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply to cash payments when ultimately the amount is deposited in the bank account of the payee.
Supreme Court held that addition u/s 69C as unexplained income sustained as based on search conducted in group concern it was found that assessee was maintaining the books of accounts outside regular books.
ITAT Chennai held that when assessee has explained the source for excess stock found during the course of survey, then, income offered towards excess stock cannot be treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Act.
Section 68 cannot be invoked if Assessee not required to maintain books of account. Section 115BBE comes into operation only in case of income referred in Section 68/69/69A/69B/69C and 69D
