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...
Explore the ITAT Bangalore ruling in Shaon Paul vs. ITO case. Addition under section 69A upheld due to imprudent retention of a sum for a long period. Details here.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in PCIT (Central) vs. Sanjay Singhal upholds ITAT’s deletion of addition under Section 69A for AY 2015-16, emphasizing need for incriminating material for valid additions.
Assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal as he was old and not well acquainted and conversant with the digital system in order to follow up with the income tax notices, which were posted in IT portal. Accordingly, the delay in filing appeal was condoned.
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s decision in Narinder Singh Punihani vs. DCIT case. No addition under Section 69A for wrist watches absence of bills. Full analysis and conclusion.
ead about the Rajasthan High Court’s decision quashing an income tax notice under Section 148A for being barred by limitation. Case details of Bijendra Singh vs ITO.
Explore the ITAT Hyderabad’s order in Puligilla Purnachander Vs ITO case for insights on Income Tax Act Section 69A, gross sales, and demonetization deposits.
Explore the ITAT Delhi order in ACIT Vs Vibha Taneja case for A.Y. 2014-15. Learn how the CIT(A) defended the assessee against unexplained money addition, citing possession and registered sale deed.
Addition under section 69A on account of actual cash arranged/paid by assessee to HKA was available with the assessee was not justified as “ownership” of money had not been recorded in the books of account and AO had made only presumption that the said cash was ‘available with the assessee’ without bringing on record any material in support thereof.
ITAT Kolkata held that education cess is not allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Explore ITAT Delhi’s ruling in DCIT vs. Creamy Foods Ltd regarding addition of unexplained cash during a search operation. Learn about explanation provided by assessee.
