S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Alleged bogus purchases – Estimate of 12% of alleged bogus expenses are affirmed – Pr. CIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd ( 2025) 474 ITR 175 / 172 Taxman.com 283 (Bom)( HC) distinguished . [ S. 37(1))

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Alleged out of books Murrum expenses – Where cash expenditure relates to business operations and its incurrence is not disputed, addition under section 69C cannot be made for the entire amount- Estimation of profit element is justified. Addition restricted to 5% of such expenses. [ S. 132 ]

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Alleged investment of unaccounted cash receipts in immoveable properties – The Tribunal held that without tangible evidence of investment, addition under section 69A on account of alleged purchase of immovable property is not justified. Addition deleted .

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Alleged unaccounted cash sales from Scrap and Piling business- Addition of gross receipts is not justified- Applying an average profit rate of 8.56% on such cash receipts is held to be reasonable – Order of CIT( A) is affirmed . [S.115BBE ]

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Salary paid to staff/ spouse and professional fees – Disallowance is restricted to 30% .[ S. 40(a)(ia),143(3) ]

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes- Profits and gains from housing projects – Condonation of delay – Genuine hardship- Delay in filing of return of income – Genuine hardship – Claim for deduction under section 80IBA – Delay of 45 days due to illness of managing partner – Rejection not justified. [S. 80IBA , 119(2(b), 139, Art. 226 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Assessment order which is nullity in law – Cannot be revised. [S. 132A, 143(3)]

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Faceless assessment – Notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer – On writ the Court set aside the notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom- Honourable Court has granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the order simply by moving a Praecipe before this Court- The Court also observed that once the Petition is revived and restored, the same would have to be decided on its own merits considering that several other issues are also raised in challenging the Notice issued under Section 148 [ S. 148 ,Art. 226 ]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- ITAT has not dealt with the issue of Document Identification Number (DIN) – Failure to decide Cross objection –Search – Assessment order without – Not uploaded on portal before limitation – Violation of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dt. 14 th August , 2019 –Bogus purchases – Un secured loan – Assessment was not uploaded on Portal before the expiry of limitation- Screen shots – Miscellaneous application was rejected by the ITAT – Order of the ITAT on merit is set aside – Matter remanded to ITAT to decide afresh. [S. 68, 132, 153A, 254(1) 254(2), 260A , IT Rules , 1963 ,47(2) Form No .36A ]

Income-tax Act, 1961
S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – Strictures – Citizens should not be dragged into prosecution without concrete evidence – Failure to produce books of accounts- documents- False statement- Verification – HSBC, Switzerland- Unauthenticated documents from a third party – Alleged foreign bank accounts – Fraud – Unauthenticated information under DTAA – Search conducted – No incriminating material found – Identity not established – Assessment reopened – Penalty imposed – ITAT quashed reassessment – No prima facie case – Reopening held unjustified – Prosecution quashed – Repeated harassment due to baseless allegations – Quashing of criminal complaints upheld- DTAA -India – Switzerland ( French) . [ S.5, 69, 90, 132(4), 153A, 271(1)(b), 276C(1)(i), 276D, 277(1), 278E,Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 , S. 482, 483, Art, 26 Art . 227 ]