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 ITAT Bangalore condoned a 28-day delay in filing appeal after accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding non-noticing of electronically communicated appellate order. The Tribunal adopted a justice-oriented approach.
The ITAT Rajkot reduced the addition on demonetization cash deposits after finding that the assessee had produced land records, cash flow statements, and other supporting evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the disputed amount.
ITAT Delhi held that if Government money was fraudulently routed through the assessee’s account by another person, such deposits may not constitute the assessee’s income. The case was remanded for factual verification.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 69A could not be invoked where the Assessing Officer himself accepted that transactions were recorded in the books of account. The matter was remanded for limited verification of sales records and related documents.
ITAT Delhi held that effective opportunity of hearing was not provided before passing ex parte assessment and appellate orders. The matter relating to sustained addition was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Bangalore ITAT held that revision proceedings under Section 264 are intended to provide relief to taxpayers and cannot worsen their position. The Tribunal struck down an enhanced addition made after remand proceedings during demonetisation cash deposit verification.
Delhi ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp messages and digital chats cannot by themselves establish undisclosed cash transactions. The Tribunal deleted additions made solely on presumptions without independent evidence.
Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when supported by prior bank withdrawals. The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must prove cash was spent elsewhere before invoking Section 69A.
The Pune ITAT held that entire cash deposits in bank accounts cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income when the assessee appears to be only a conduit in an accommodation entry network. The Tribunal restricted the taxable addition to 2% of deposits after finding no evidence of actual enrichment.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the appellate order after observing inconsistencies between the findings of the CIT(A) and the assessment order. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication with a reasoned speaking order and proper opportunity of hearing.
