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 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 : ITAT Chennai held that loose sheets and estimates alone cannot justify an addition under Section 69B without independent corrobora...
Income Tax : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
The Mumbai ITAT held that no separate addition for alleged bogus purchases can be made where the assessee has already disclosed a higher gross profit on disputed transactions. The Tribunal relied on Bombay High Court rulings limiting additions only to differential GP.
The case addressed whether entries in third-party seized documents can justify additions. The ITAT ruled they cannot without independent corroboration. It reinforces that suspicion alone cannot sustain tax additions.
The Tribunal held that return of advances cannot be taxed under Section 68. The key takeaway is that explained transactions supported by records cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification and corroboration, such evidence is insufficient and proceedings are invalid.
ITAT ruled that on-money represents business receipts and not pure income. Only profit portion can be taxed, rejecting full addition. The decision reinforces distinction between receipts and income.
The Tribunal held that loans received from NBFCs cannot be treated as unexplained where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are established. Absence of incriminating material led to deletion of additions.
The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon were later retracted and lacked corroboration. It held that such statements cannot form sole basis of addition. The ruling emphasizes need for supporting evidence in tax proceedings.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO is valid. The tribunal held that proceedings are void ab initio when jurisdiction had already been transferred under Section 127.
The issue was whether entire purchases can be disallowed as bogus under Section 69C. The tribunal held that when sales are accepted, only the profit element (15%) can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
The Tribunal found that once additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted, penalty became infructuous. The ruling highlights the dependency of penalty on assessment findings.
