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...
Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key cases provide insights into tax disputes.
ITAT Bangalore allows Vikas Co-operative’s appeal, stating addition under Section 69A cannot be made solely on the basis of not accepting demonetized currency.
ITAT Delhi directs the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the case of Puneet Utreja. The Tribunal ruled that the explanation on Term Deposit maturity and redemption was adequate.
ITAT Delhi removes addition of ₹2.9 Cr by AO in property transaction under Section 69A. CIT(A) accepts purchase and sale documents. Read the full judgment.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition u/s. 69A unjustified as cash deposited in bank account is from business income and the same is already considered under the Profits & gains of business or profession.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that addition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained income sustained since assessee failed to substantiate the nature and source of cash deposits in bank.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A on account of income from undisclosed source sustained in assessee deliberately failed to produce all the books of accounts and no material evidence furnished by the assessee.
Assessee challenged CIT(A) order before the Bangalore Bench of ITAT arguing that 1450 grams of gold should not be considered unexplained as it fell within the permissible limits of CBDT Instruction No. 1916.
ITAT Chandigarh held that since notices were issued through ITBA portal only it cannot be treated as a valid service of notice. Accordingly, proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that approval of large number of cases in a single day cannot be reason for faulting reopening of assessment since the case was reopened u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act after due application of mind.
