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...
In this article, we discuss case of Hasmukh Kanjibhai Tadhani Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) involving cash deposits during demonetization, with detailed analysis and outcome
Cash deposited during demonetization can’t be unexplained if taxpayer has a history of cash sales and no discrepancies found in books.
ITAT Chennai directs AO to accept 50% of cash deposits as sale proceeds and balance as unexplained money in J. Kalappa Naidu Sons’ case vs. ITO.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as assessee has filed necessary evidence to explain nature and source for cash deposits.
ITAT Delhi held that for the purpose of Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessment can be said to be ‘made’ only when the DIN is quoted on the order before it is signed. Order passed u/s 153A without first generating the DIN is invalid and bad-in-law.
ITAT Chandigarh’s ruling on the necessity of proper service for Income Tax notices. An in-depth analysis of Sandeep Kumar vs. ITO case. Learn more.
ITAT Amritsar held that excess stock found during the survey only be treated as income under the head business income and not as deemed income under section 69B of the Income Tax Act.
Analysis of ITAT Chennai’s decision in Smt. Saraniyaa Karthick vs. ITO regarding the estimation of addition on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period.
ITAT Amritsar held that once source of surrendered income is proved to be business income, the same cannot be taxed as deemed income under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
Read the full text of ITAT Mumbai’s order directing re-adjudication of foreign income earned by a deceased assessee based on the residential status of the previous year.
