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 Delhi held that towards unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of unsigned unexecuted draft agreement to sale without any other collaborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai imposes a cost on Rajendra Karbhari Bodake for ignoring income tax proceedings, highlighting the need to take such matters seriously.
Analysis of ITAT Delhi’s decision in Sheo Chand Yadav vs ITO, where the tribunal deleted the income tax addition related to cash deposits during demonetization.
An analysis of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in the Neeti Rastogi vs. ACIT case, emphasizing CBDT Circular’s role in defining unexplained jewellery under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest paid on housing loan borrowed for purchase of flat is not allowable as cost of acquisition.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F unjustified as no steps were taken to convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. Accordingly, disallowance deleted.
In present facts of the case, the Tribunal held that Assessment Order issued without DIN is null and void as it is in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 1 4th August, 2019.
Analysis of ITAT Hyderabad’s decision in Mareddy Jagan Mohan Vs ITO: Cost levied for ignoring CIT(A) NFAC notices and impact on the assessee’s appeal.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act based on seized dumb documents found in the premises of third party is unsustainable in law as the seized documents are merely loose sheets not forming part of the books of account of the assessee and that they do not constitute admissible evidence.
ITAT Surat held that seized jewellery within the permissible limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No 1916 dated 11.05.1994 couldn’t be treated as undisclosed jewellery. Accordingly, addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act liable to be deleted.
