Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


ITO v. Chandresh Chhaganlal Mehta (2024) 111 ITR 93 (SN) (Mum)(Trib) ITO v. Mustafa Zainuddin Nalawala (2024)111 ITR 93 (SN) (Mum)(Trib)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources-Bogus purchases-Accommodation entries-Information from Sales Tax Department-Addition aat 12.5 Per Cent. of bogus purchases is held to be justified.

CIT (Dy.) v. Seo Lehenga House (2024) 111 ITR 681 (Chd)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Commission-Bogus purchases and sales-Gross profit offered to tax-No separate addition can be made.

ITO v. Rajesh Amulakhrai Sanghvi, (2024) 111 ITR 500 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Purchases are recorded in the books and corresponding sales are accepted-The entire amount of alleged bogus purchases should not be added to income-Gross profit rate of 12.5% on such purchases is reasonable. [S.133(6), 147]

Bengal Mill Stores P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 81(SN) (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources-bogus purchases-An addition of four percent of bogus purchases is held to be appropriate.[S.68]

Seo Lehenga House v. DCIT, (2024) 111 ITR 681 (Chd)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-The commission paid on bogus purchases and sales is covered by the gross profit already disclosed and offered to tax-No separate addition can be made. [S. 132, 133]

A. P. Knit Fab v Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR46 (Chad)(Trib)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account-Excess stock-Survey-Deeming provision would not apply-Assessable at normal rates as business income. [S.115BBE,133A]

Gurinder Makkar v. Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 274 (Chd)(Trib.)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account-Excess stock-Discrepancy in cost of building-Cash expenditure-Income disclosed in the course of survey-Tax not be levied by applying the deeming provision. [S.40A(3) 115BBE, 133A]

Global Ship Trade P. Ltd. v. ITO (2024)111 ITR 56 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Survey-Amount received from bank entity of another entity-Share capital-Addition is deleted.[S.133A]

Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala v. ITO [2024] 163 taxmann.com 115 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained moneys-Demonetization-Not taxable as undisclosed income-Best judgement assessment-Order under section 144 is not valid.[S. 115BBE,144]

Hemant Samarataji Lohar v. CIT(A) [2024] 163 taxmann.com 292 (SMC)(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 69A: Unexplained moneys-Search-Cash seized during search-Explained the source of cash-Addition is deleted. [S. 132]