Compounding fees collected from illegal mining, transportation, and storage of minerals constituted a ‘transfer of rights’ and consequently attracted Tax Collection at Source (TCS) under Section 206C(1C) as it involved parting with an interest in the mine.
ITAT Jaipur held that surrendered income during survey cannot be treated as unexplained income or money u/s. 69 & 69A of the Income Tax Act and tax in accordance with provisions of section 115BBE. The same has to be assessed to tax under ‘business income’.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act based on common approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is non-est in the eye of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that seized amounts prima facie being proceeds of crime cannot be termed as income of accused as trial in PMLA case is yet to be conclude. Accordingly, it is erroneous to treat such amount as taxable income recoverable by Income Tax Department.
ITAT Delhi held that mere presence of blank cheque without there being any other evidence, proving earning of any income or making of any capital transaction, the same cannot be treated as income. Accordingly, ground raised by revenue dismissed.
Supreme Court held that since all three conditions required to sustain levy of tax u/s. 3F(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 are fulfilled, tax is leviable on ink and processing material used in printing lottery tickets.
The Tribunal held that since the Delhi High Court had restored the Industrial Park’s original Rs. 80 IA approval, the subsequent disallowance based on the quashed withdrawal was invalid. This affirms that a valid judicial ruling overrides the Central Government’s withdrawal order, securing the tax benefit for the taxpayer.
This ITAT Rajkot decision clarifies that when an assessee establishes a clear nexus between past bank withdrawals and subsequent demonetisation cash deposits, the high tax rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable. The Tribunal, citing a Gujarat HC judgment, deleted the entire addition except for a 5% estimated profit to balance revenue interest and taxpayer evidence.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that when sales are accepted and only purchases are proven bogus (due to non-existent suppliers/cancelled GST), only the profit element embedded in the purchases can be taxed, not the entire Rs.69C expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the application of the assessee’s own 1.39% Gross Profit rate on the bogus purchases, rejecting the AO’s arbitrary 25% addition.
The Lucknow ITAT ruled that a cash deposit cannot be treated as unexplained income if the assessees prior cash withdrawals from the bank are greater than the amount deposited. The burden shifts to the Revenue to prove the cash was used elsewhere, which they failed to do in this case.
