This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

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]

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

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-Commission-Bogus purchases and sales-Gross profit offered to tax-No separate addition can be made.

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

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

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

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

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-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]

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

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

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

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