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 held that PCIT has taken divergent view from that of AO without giving the basis for invoking of provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order passed by PCIT u/s. 263 not justifiable.
AO proceeded to finalize the assessment based on available records, as the assessee had still not responded or provided any explanations regarding the unexplained cash deposits. AO added the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 3,13,34,845/- to the total income.
ITAT Bangalore held that granting an opportunity to cross examine essential when addition is made on the basis of 3rd party statements. Non-granting any opportunity of cross examination violates the principle of natural which vitiates the validity of addition.
ITAT Bangalore deleted addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money after examining the cash withdrawn and cash deposit amounts, since cash withdrawn is more than cash deposit.
ITAT Chennai held that cash received under unregistered will accepted as will furnished by the assessee not established as fabricated one by the department and there is no requirement in law to get the will registered.
ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside an order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act after a notice was sent to the wrong address. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Reassessment order was quashed on cash deposits as AO did not possess any credible information to form a belief that income had escaped assessment and there was non-application of mind for reopening the matter.
ITAT Bangalore in the case of cash deposit during demonetization period directed assessee to file KYC of the depositors and accordingly directed AO to verify the same and allow if found in order.
Madras High Court held that there cannot be any excuse for not filing the counter affidavits in time. Thus, Standing Counsel directed to be prompt in filing the counter affidavits and make themselves ready to argue the cases without seeking more adjournments.
