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 Pune held that default in allotting ‘DIN and Order’ results into quashing of the impugned assessment as according to CBDT circular no. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 such an order ought to be treated as to have never been issued herein.
Unexplained bank deposits cannot be considered under Section 68 and it falls under Section 69A. However, mentioning a wrong section by AO is not fatal.
Krishna Goyal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has explained the source of deposits in the bank account to be out of the withdrawals made from the very same bank account. However, the Assessing Officer as well as learned Commissioner (Appeals) have partly accepted the explanation of the assessee only […]
Batuk Vithalabhai Donga Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) If addition under section 80U is not made under section 68 or 69, then tax cannot be imposed under section 115BBE Assessee has not challenged the additions made by the AO under section 80U and 80G of the Act, but has only challenged the computation of tax liability […]
Sh. Balwinder Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) Ld. A.O cannot blow hot and cold at the same time by partly rejecting the books of accounts and partly accepted the books of accounts, which is bad-in-law. If the AO rejected the books of accounts, then he can’t rely on the same books of accounts for opening […]
It is pertinent to note that to meet the emergency situation of additional expenses by the assessee the assessee has obtained cash not only from assessee’s father and mother but also the close relative i.e. the maternal uncle, maternal aunt as well as paternal uncle and paternal aunt and the said relation cannot be doubted by the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of agreement which is not even signed without any corroborative material is unsustainable in law.
Shail Jayesh Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the copy of the bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank, we find that assessee had deposited Rs.6 lakh in cash in 600 old currency notes of Rs. 1000 denomination on 01/12/2016. At a glance, it may appear that since the assessee had sufficient cash in hand amounting […]
Arvind Purseth Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Cuttack) It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the only issue in the appeal of the assessee was that TDS had not been deducted in respect of payments made to M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. and M/s Gulshan Freight Carrier. It was the submission that Form 26A had been […]
M. Vijayakumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the CIT(A) has not doubted the source of maturity of assessee’s father FDs of Rs.8 lakhs which was withdrawn on 01.11.2016. Admittedly, the assessee made deposit on 10.11.2016 in cash, this amount of Rs.8 lakhs. The only dispute is confirmation, which now the assessee confirmed by […]
