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 Kolkata held that grants from the West Bengal State Government to cooperative societies are not income from other sources and eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the case of Srimathi Pichara Vs ITO, ITAT Hyderabad set aside ex-parte addition of cash deposits made during demonetization period under Section 69A of Income Tax Act. ITAT directed Assessing Officer to readjudicate the matter after providing an opportunity to assessee to produce relevant documents for fact verification
ITAT Raipur held that unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act was received back through banking channel in the form of sale consideration of the shares. Accordingly, the same has to be brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Cuttack held that addition towards the unexplained investment for SBN deposits during demonetization period sustained in absence to establish source of the same without documentary evidences.
Yeddula Harsha Vardhan wins appeal against DCIT at ITAT Hyderabad, as Rs. 4 lakhs addition under section 69A is deleted. Read the full verdict here.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount cannot be treated as unexplained and accordingly addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as amount duly recorded in books of account and offered to tax as professional fees.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once additional income offered during survey was simply accepted and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without invoking provisions of section 115BBE. Then, provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked via rectification as per section 154.
Delve into the intricacies of the case Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), analyzing the discrepancy between Section 68 and Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
SC held that assessee was not the owner of bitumen for Section 69A, and bitumen could not be classified as an ‘other valuable article’ under section 69A.
DCIT Vs Shri Sanjay Singhal (ITAT Delhi) The undisputed fact is that the substantive as well as protective additions have been made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. A bare perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that no money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article was found during search conducted on 07.04.2017 which is […]
