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 PCIT Vs Goutam Chakraborty case where Calcutta High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, upholding the deletion of additions under section 69A for seized gold.
The ITAT Chandigarh directs reassessment in a case where the appellant, Puran Singh, was unaware of a notice due to its delivery on his counsel’s e-mail ID, leading to the inability to provide explanations on cash deposits.
ITAT Pune held that that the amount surrendered under unrecorded stock has to be brought to tax under the head “business income” and no provision u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act is attracted.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act untenable as cash deposited during the demonetization period duly explained.
In the case of Rammohan Kordale vs ACIT, ITAT Bangalore held that money transferred between assessee’s joint bank accounts cannot be classified as unexplained money under Section 69A of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that more specific plea and explanation ought to be given by an assessee for discharging burden u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act to explain jewelry beyond that mentioned in Wealth Tax Return.
Explore the verdict of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Hemavathi Ramesh Vs ITO, where cash deposits from earlier deposits were deemed taxable. Delve into the legal nuances and implications of the judgement.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 blocking the tweets/accounts for an indefinite period are unassailable on the doctrine of proportionality.
ITAT Dehradun held that addition of cash deposits made during the demonetization period unsustained as predominant source of income was only agricultural income and no other source of income is brought on record by AO.
The Hon’ble Tribunal while allowing Revenue Appeal have held that when the amounts received in cash against the sale of flats which have not been recorded in the books of account of the assessee at the time of search and seizure operation and subsequently recorded in the books as advance from customers is nothing but an eye wash to supplement the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash receipts. Therefore the addition made by the AO deserves to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.
