S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Un explained investment-Bogus purchases-Accommodation entries-Sales accepted-Addition is restricted to gross profit of 6.19%. [S.28(i), 69, 143]
Mahir Diamonds v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 626/114 ITR 80(SN) (Mum) (Trib.)S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Un explained investment-Bogus purchases-Accommodation entries-Sales accepted-Addition is restricted to gross profit of 6.19%. [S.28(i), 69, 143]
Mahir Diamonds v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 626/114 ITR 80(SN) (Mum) (Trib.)S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-filed details of purchases made and corresponding quantity of sales made-Entire purchases could not have been added to income-Only profit element can be taxed.
Heena Gems v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 481/114 ITR 30(SN) (Mum) (Trib.)S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Diary-Cash expenses-Absence of specific details in the affidavit-Addition is affirmed. [S. 132]
Kailash Gahlot. v. DCIT (2024) 208 ITD 25 /113 ITR 62 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposit-Demonetization period-Source explained-Addition is deleted.[S.115BBE]
Dipak Balubhai Patel (HUF) v. ITO 2024] 208 ITD 386/115 ITR 624 (Ahd) (Trib.)S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Cash deposit of 3 lakh-Returned income of assessee is more than Rs. 50 lakhs, cash deposit of around 3 lakhs could not be treated as unexplained investment.
Ravi Jakhar v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 633 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Bogus purchases-Accommodation entries-Disallowance is restricted at rate of 6 per cent of bogus purchases-Sale of shares-Explained the source of purchase-Order of CIT(A deleting the addition is affirmed-Reassessment is affirmed.[S. 147, 148]
DCIT v. Center Point Gems (P.) Ltd. (2024) 208 ITD 213 (Surat) (Trib.)S. 68 : Cash credits-Penny stock-Long term capital gains-Accommodation entries-DMAT-Sale of shares of PS Infrastructure and Services Limited-Addition is deleted-Exemption is allowed.[S. 10(38), 45]
Vikram N. Chandan. v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 723 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 68 : Cash credits-Bogus donations-Cash deposited in banks-Addition is justified. [S. 35AC, 35AC(ii)]
Vaibhav Pankaj Shah v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 718 /231 TTJ 869 / 241 DTR 25(Mum) (Trib.)S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gains-Accommodation entries-Penny stock-Purchase of shares of LDPL and MARL in off-market transactions-Inordinate delay in dematerialization of those shares-Transaction is not genuine-Addition is justified. [S.10(38). 45]
Shailesh K. Patel HUF. v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 539/ 231 TTJ 929/243 DTR 201 (Ahd) (Trib.)S. 68 : Cash credits-long-term capital gain-Sale of shares-Penny stock-Accommodation entries-Information from investigation Wing-Purchase in physical form-Decartelized-Purchase was made through Banking channels-Deletion of addition by CIT(A) is affirmed. [S. 10(38), 45]
ITO v. Prakashmal Malraj Jain. (2024) 208 ITD 403 (Mum) (Trib.)