Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
In the case of 2024 (5) TMI 1132 before the ITAT Mumbai, the issue pertained to penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) concerning the estimation of income on bogus purchases. The CIT(A) applied a gross profit rate of 10% on the bogus purchases instead of the entire amount added by the assessing officer, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The tribunal held that since the payments for the purchases were evidenced in the books and through banking channels, with corresponding utilization in the manufacturing account accepted, the entire purchases could not have been added u/s. 69C. The decision was in line with precedents such as PCIT vs. Jagdish Thakkar and PCIT vs. S V Jiwani. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as there was no concealment of income based on the estimated profit rate of 10%. The penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
In the case of 2024 (5) TMI 1132 before the ITAT Mumbai, the issue pertained to penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) concerning the estimation of income on bogus purchases. The CIT(A) applied a gross profit rate of 10% on the bogus purchases instead of the entire amount added by the assessing officer, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The tribunal held that since the payments for the purchases were evidenced in the books and through banking channels, with corresponding utilization in the manufacturing account accepted, the entire purchases could not have been added u/s. 69C. The decision was in line with precedents such as PCIT vs. Jagdish Thakkar and PCIT vs. S V Jiwani. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as there was no concealment of income based on the estimated profit rate of 10%. The penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
