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 Mumbai held that matter regarding addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act remanded back for fresh consideration directing appellant to file all documents/ details and supporting evidence explaining source of cash deposits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on technical/ procedural aspect merely because the appeal was filed manually instead of e-filing unjustified as assessee was not given an opportunity to cure the defect. Accordingly, appeal restored back.
Assessee had deposited Rs.2,25,00,000/- during the demonetization period in the bank account and explained the reason of the cash deposit, hence he had discharged the onus and prove the genuineness of the transaction.
The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of retail milk selling. For the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee did not originally file a return of income, as the total income was below the basic exemption limit under the Act.
ITAT Delhi remands the case of Sanjeev Mittal Vs ACIT for fresh adjudication due to lack of adequate opportunity for the appellant during earlier proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that unreasoned order confirming addition passed ex-parte is against the principal of natural justice and hence the matter is restored back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The assessee is an NRI. During the demonetization period, the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.6,00,000/- each in his bank account. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the AO questioned the source of these cash deposits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
ITAT restored appeal of Trupti Ashishkumar Desai against an addition under Section 69A, emphasizing need for fair opportunity and compliance.
ITAT Chennai orders reassessment in G. Elumalai case, allowing for verification of agricultural and rental income sources after cash seizure during Vellore elections.
