<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>AO&#039;s 30% addition under Section 68 reduced to 15% due to lack of evidence and proper analysis of financials</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91454</link>
    <description>The ITAT held that the AO erred in making additions under section 68 without properly analyzing the assessee&#039;s financial statements and VAT returns, which were undisputed and did not indicate any discrepancies. The tribunal found that the AO could not reject the assessee&#039;s voluntary offer to add 15% of cash sales as unaccounted income and then make an ad hoc addition of 30% without substantive evidence. Since the AO failed to dispute the books of account or stock-in-trade, the 15% addition should have been accepted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part by reducing the addition to 15%, quashing the excess ad hoc disallowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2025 08:43:28 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2025 08:43:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=842220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>AO&#039;s 30% addition under Section 68 reduced to 15% due to lack of evidence and proper analysis of financials</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91454</link>
      <description>The ITAT held that the AO erred in making additions under section 68 without properly analyzing the assessee&#039;s financial statements and VAT returns, which were undisputed and did not indicate any discrepancies. The tribunal found that the AO could not reject the assessee&#039;s voluntary offer to add 15% of cash sales as unaccounted income and then make an ad hoc addition of 30% without substantive evidence. Since the AO failed to dispute the books of account or stock-in-trade, the 15% addition should have been accepted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part by reducing the addition to 15%, quashing the excess ad hoc disallowance.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2025 08:43:28 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>