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...
The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. Proper verification and rebuttal of evidence are necessary before sustaining additions under Section 69A.
ITAT Mumbai held that incomplete WhatsApp chats without proof of completed transactions cannot justify additions under Section 69A. The Tribunal found that the chats lacked corroborative evidence showing actual payment of money.
ITAT Delhi held that where sales are accepted and purchases are supported by invoices and banking transactions, only the profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. The Tribunal restricted the addition by applying the average profit rate instead of sustaining the entire disallowance.
ITAT Delhi restored a Section 69A addition after holding that the assessee failed to produce evidence supporting its claim that the seized cash was meant for inter-branch transfer. The Tribunal found the explanation unsupported and inconsistent with available records.
The Delhi ITAT held that informal WhatsApp conversations without corroborative evidence cannot establish unexplained investment under Section 69A. Since no excess jewellery, invoices, or payment proof were found, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT Amritsar reduced additions on unexplained cash deposits after considering that the assessee and his wife were senior citizens with no regular income source. The Tribunal allowed part of the deposits as past savings and household cash availability.
ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statement forms the basis of the assessment. The Tribunal ruled that reliance on such untested statements violates principles of natural justice and renders the addition legally unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under Section 69A could not survive when based solely on a third-party statement without granting cross-examination. The Tribunal ruled that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of cross-examination in a case based on third-party statements and seized records violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment after granting the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessee cannot be taxed on excess income wrongly declared in the return due to inadvertent error. The Tribunal deleted the Section 69A addition after accepting agricultural income evidence.
