Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reliance on third-party statements without granting effective cross-examination amounted to a violation of ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Corporate Law : Details on Indian government's blocking of YouTube channels, citing IT Rules 2021 and Section 69A of IT Act 2000. Learn about reas...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore remanded a Section 69A addition after holding that an APMC commission agent's entire sale proceeds could not be tre...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore deleted the Section 69A addition after holding that member details established the source of cash deposits made dur...
Income Tax : ITAT held that negative cash balances do not automatically establish undisclosed income and upheld addition only to the peak negat...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : ITAT Allahabad held that estimating gross profit solely on the basis of the subsequent years GP rate is not justified after reject...
Income Tax : CBDT has instructed tax officers to uniformly apply Sections 68 to 69D and Section 115BBE after a C&AG audit found inconsistencies...
ITAT Delhi remits case on Section 69A unexplained money addition of ₹11.45 lakh to CIT(A)/NFAC for re-examination. Directions issued for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Ahmedabad allows Pankajkumar Patel’s appeal for statistical purposes, remanding unexplained investment case to AO for reconsideration under Section 69A.
Summary of an appeal against a CIT(A) order confirming additions under Section 69A for AY 2017-18. Directions issued for de-novo proceedings.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards cash deposit in bank account u/s. 69A as unexplained liable to be deleted since assessee satisfactorily explained the source. Accordingly, addition deleted.
Solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in the bank account during demonetization period remaining unexplained, amounting to Rs.10.00 lakhs.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands Krupal Patel’s case to AO for fresh assessment after issues with portal access and lack of representation.
ITAT Kolkata deletes Rs.52.25 lakh addition under Section 69A for unaccounted fees. Evidence proved the amount was properly accounted for in the trust’s records.
ITAT Ahmedabad rescinds ex-parte Rs.36L addition u/s 69A, directing reassessment with a chance for the assessee to explain financial records.
ITAT Surat held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization restricted to 10% of total deposit since assessee fully substantiated the cash deposit showing sufficient withdrawal. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that taxability of surrendered undisclosed income under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act requires verification on the part of the AO. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of AO.
