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...
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the Jasvant Baraiya case for reassessment under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act due to procedural non-compliance and appeal disputes.
ITAT Delhi reduces unexplained cash deposit addition under Section 69A to ₹2.5 lakh for AY 2017-18 due to partial explanation of sources by the taxpayer.
Reliance was placed on decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in ITA No. 325/2008 and it was argued that no addition u/s 68 could be made on account of trade creditors when the books of accounts have not been rejected.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that tax rate u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act increased from 30% to 60% and the same is applicable only with effect from 1st April 2017 and not prior to the same. Hence, appeal allowed to that extent.
It was argued on behalf of the revenue that tribunal was not justified in passing the order as it is an admitted fact that huge cash was deposited in the bank account of the assessee, which was totally contrary to the agreement hence provisions 69A were attracted.
It was argued on behalf of assessee that in the preceding AY, the margin of the assessee from the sale of recharge coupons was 1.75% (approx) and the same was accepted by the Department. Estimation of profit margin at 8% by AO is very much on higher side.
ITAT Ranchi remanded the matter regarding addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act back to the file of CIT(A) since paper books was not produced before AO or CIT(A).
‘Gupt Daan’,a secret gift regarding unexplained cash in a Religious Trust locker was pertaining to RNB Temple Trust and was already brought on record to the extent of Rs.1,79,00,000/- which was evident from the Balance Sheet submitted.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT deleted addition made on account of undisclosed cash deposits during demonetization period after observing that assessee has substantiate means of income for depositing cash.
IT Department during demonetization (from November 9, 2016, to December 30,2016) identified various individuals who had deposited substantial sums of cash, under the initiative “Operation Clean Money”.
