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 Pune remands the case of Suhas Maruti Dhankude for re-adjudication due to non-adjudication of jurisdictional grounds and failure to state point of determination.
Punjab & Haryana HC upholds Principal Commissioner’s revision under Section 263. Assessing Officer’s wrong Section 44ADA assessment found erroneous.
Notice under section 148 was issued upon assessee by AO for reassessing the cash deposit as undisclosed income, following approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) relied upon fresh submissions and additional evidence filed by the assessee, however, no opportunity was granted to AO to examine the fresh evidences. Accordingly, order set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as revenue failed to prove that cash sales are fictitious/ bogus.
Read the detailed analysis of Prem Prakash Sethi vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) case where ITAT deletes addition on unexplained jewellery and cash. Full text of the order included.
Calcutta High Court held that petitioner not put to notice in respect of addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as notice was issued making addition u/s. 68. Accordingly, the same is violative of principles of natural justice.
ITAT Delhi held that approval granted u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act by the superior authority in mechanical manner has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. Thus, assessment order in consequence to such inexplicable approval lacks legality.
In the case of Anil Champalal Jain vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai), learn why Mumbai ITAT ruled that cash deposits during demonetization alone cannot justify income addition without clear evidence of accounting errors. Read the full text of the order for detailed insights.
ITAT Jaipur rules in Shobha Tomar Vs DCIT that cash deposits from professional income during demonetization cannot be deemed unexplained. Detailed analysis inside.
