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 Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the same was filed belatedly not justified as CIT(A) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee so as to the grounds for condonation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards entire cash deposits during demonetization period by passing ex-parte order due to non-compliance by assessee without examining on merits unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO for fresh examination.
Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.35,13,000/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 36,48,000/- and credit entries of Rs. 21,93,269/-. AO observed that inspite of repeated reminders, assessee failed to submit the reply.
ITAT Delhi orders fresh review of Shiv Kumar’s ₹10.3 lakh deposit case after original appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with advance tax conditions.
ITAT Nagpur held that the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money is liable to be quashed since the nature and source of deposit is clearly established.
ITAT Ahmedabad restored the matter back to the file of CIT(A) after imposing cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for negligence in diligently prosecuting the appeal before CIT(A). It is directed that amount is to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act deleted as the source for capital investment properly explained by the assessee. Accordingly, addition deleted.
On verification of the bank account copies and the other material available before him, AO noticed that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 24,31,000/- by way of Specified Bank Notes [“SBNs”].
ITAT Ahmedabad held that dismissal of appeal due to non-prosecution without adjudicating the issue on merits deprives the assessee of fair opportunity of being heard hence violating the principles of natural justice.
