Section 69C - Page 6

12.5% Addition justified in absence of direct one to one relationship between purchases and sales

Smt. Kiran Navin Doshi Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai)

Fact that direct one to one relationship between purchases and sales have not been established, I am of the view that estimation of 12.5% as profit embedded in impugned purchases shown from these tainted parties and adding the same to the total income returned, would meet the ends of justice. ...

Read More

Addition u/s 69 not sustainable in absence of any proof of investment by assesse: HC

CIT Vs Provestment Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Provestment Securities Pvt. Ltd. that we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the question whether an investment had been made or not is a matter of fact and the same cannot be presumed....

Read More

Addition cannot be made for mere non-submission of Purchase Bill

M/s. Palco Distributors Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Kolkata)

M/s. Palco Distributors Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Only premise of the AO for making addition is that assessee could not produce purchase bills for a sum of Rs.21,72,083/- having 526 items. We find that the items are properly recorded means the assessee has explained the source of acquisition...

Read More

Disallowance u/s 69C not sustainable where all purchases recorded in books of account accepted by AO

ACIT Vs M/s Command Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s Command Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. that when all the purchases are accounted in the regular books of accounts, it means the source is explained and the provisions of section 69C are not applicable, as there was no unaccounted expenditure....

Read More

Bogus Purchase- Mere Adjustment in Purchase without disturbing Sales not Justified

ACIT Vs Advert Communication (ITAT Delhi)

ACIT vs Advert Communication ( ITAT Delhi) 1.If addition has to be made for bogus purchases then sales should also be disturbed ; 2.Until and unless both parties don’t confirm the cessation of liability then addition cannot be made u/s 41(1); 3....

Read More

No addition for expense shown in projected P&L A/c without showing corroborative evidences

DCIT Vs M/s. Vaghasia Associates (ITAT Ahmedabad)

In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Vaghasia Associates, ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because some estimated labour payment was written on the projected profit & loss account, the addition for unexplained expenditure cannot be made....

Read More

Profits may be recognized on sale even if Assessee follows project completion method if all risk and reward been passed on

ITO Vs M/s Shree Sidhivinayak Developers (ITAT Mumbai)

The assessee firm is a builder and developer and is assessed in the status of AOP. During the year under consideration, the assessee was developing a residential project which involved construction of 182 flats. The assessee did not disclose any income out of these projects on the plea that it was following ‘project completion method...

Read More

Mere declaration of supplier as ‘Hawala dealer’ by Vat Authorities not sufficient to made addition U/s. 69C

ITO Vs Paresh Arvind Gandhi (ITAT Mumbai)

Brief Facts:Assessee, an individual,proprietor of M/s. Hydro Pure System,is engaged in the business of installation,erection and servicing of water purifying systems.He is deriving income from business and other sources. He filed his return of income on 28.9.10,declaring total income of Rs.18.40 lacs ....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,689)
Company Law (7,672)
Custom Duty (8,715)
DGFT (4,623)
Excise Duty (4,527)
Fema / RBI (4,813)
Finance (5,182)
Income Tax (38,433)
SEBI (4,131)
Service Tax (3,778)

Search Posts by Date

September 2021