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 Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 for non-compliance before CIT(A) and held that the assessee can’t simply escape by placing the blame on the Tax Consultant. Thus, matter restored back to the file of AO.
The assessment order was framed in which the AO made certain additions in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,05,00,477/- as unexplained income of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 towards amount received as gift from son not justified since addition is made in a baseless manner, solely relying on unverified newspaper reports. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
As the assessee had not submitted his explanation with respect to cash deposit made by him during the demonetization period, the same was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
ITAT Agra held that dismissal of appeal as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax unjustified since entre addition made by AO was challenged and there was no other income which is above threshold limit of being taxable.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned the delay of 611 days in filing of an appeal considering the fact that the assessee is a layperson with limited familiarity with the intricacies of the e-portal system.
During the assessment proceedings, AO provided many opportunities to the Assessee to explain the nature and source of deposits made during the demonization period, however, the Assessee did not gave any satisfactory explanation during the assessment proceedings.
The writ petitioner company is non-deposit taking Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) having license from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for functioning as a Micro Finance Institution (MFI) registered with RBI.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment unsustainable since assessee had explained the source of investment in FDs as being from his FD/OD account.
ITAT directs fresh examination in Ambasa Babansa Raibagi case due to PAN linking error, remitting the Rs. 25.66 lakh addition back to AO.
