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 assessee earned income from selling milk and filed her return for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.1,78,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny with the reason of “large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income”.
Denial of the entire expenditure incurred towards as cost of construction by AO could not be held to be justified even if assessee did not submit satisfactory bills/vouchers in support of her claim towards the cost of construction.
ITAT Surat held that purchase of credit cards by making cash payments without providing explanation with regard to nature and source of money is liable to be added under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee was engaged in the business of providing works contract service and labour service. AO found that assessee had made a cash deposit of Rs.62,10,000/- in the bank account during demonetization period.
Both the revenue authorities have accepted the books of accounts, book results could not be disturbed once it is admitted that cash sales are recorded in books and forming part of turnover of the business.
CIT (A) erred in treating the loan of Rs.90.52 crores u/s 69A/69B when the show cause notice of enhancement was with reference to section 69 and there were neither any investments which were not recorded in the books of account nor is there any such finding by the CIT(A).
Assessee was also expected to be vigilante in so far as assessment proceedings were concerned. Most of the time assessee went in slow motion and avoid proceedings by not responding to notice(s) of Department, not appearing before AO, not following up with CA/Advocates.
ITAT Chennai deletes addition of Rs.53.23 Lakh on cash deposits during demonetization and directs re-computation of income in Balu Vignesh case.
ITAT Delhi remands appeal to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to denial of personal hearing in Kumar Kanti Das Vs ACIT case for AY 2017-18.
ITAT Kolkata held that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules should be restricted to the dividend yielding investments. Accordingly, AO directed to re-compute disallowance.
