Home › Archive for Income-Tax Act › Page 59
Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Baijmath Somani Charitable Trust v. CIT (E) (2024) 112 ITR 705 /230 TTJ 224/238 DTR 321 (Kol)(Trib.) Satyanarayan Somani Charitable Trust v. CIT (E) (2024) 112 ITR 705 /230 TTJ 224/238 DTR 321 (Kol)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Registration-After grant of provisional approval, the application cannot be rejected on the ground that the institution had already commenced its activities even prior to grant of provisional registration.[S.80G(5)(iv), Form No 10AC.]

Muthi Trust v. CIT (E) (2024) 112 ITR 51(SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Denial of registration-Delay in filing Form No.10AB for renewal-Circular 6/2023,-Directed to consider the registration on merits. [S.12AB, 80G(5)]

Teddy Trust v. CIT (E) (2024) 112 ITR 569 / 164 taxmann.com 474 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Denial of registration-The extended time limit of 30.09.2023 as per CBDT Circular 29 dated 24.05.2023 would apply to Form No.10AB-CIT(E) is directed to consider the application on merits without raising the issue of timeline. [S.80G(5)(iv), Form No 10AB, 10AC]

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]