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 presumptive taxation under Section 44AD was wrongly invoked where the assessee’s turnover exceeded ₹2 crore. The Tribunal clarified that statutory turnover limits must be strictly satisfied before applying presumptive profit provisions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished agricultural sale bills, revenue records, and bank details supporting the cash deposits. Considering the facts and circumstances, only a partial addition was sustained.
ITAT Jaipur held that additions for unexplained sales and investment could not survive once the CESTAT rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted additions made under Sections 69A and 69C.
The Tribunal observed that official salary documents issued by the employer and Income Tax Department showed salary income of only ₹4.67 lakh. The incorrect figure in the return was therefore held to be a typographical mistake requiring rectification.
ITAT Mumbai accepted part of the assessee’s explanation that cash used for credit card payments came from family members. The Tribunal relied on income tax returns, bank statements, and affidavits while granting partial relief.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued on 25.07.2022 were time-barred since the Revenue had only one surviving day left under the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal limitation formula.
The ITAT held that unverified third-party excel sheets without corroborative evidence cannot justify additions under Sections 69 or 69A. The Tribunal observed that mere electronic entries amount to dumb documents unless independently verified.
ITAT Indore set aside the ex parte appellate order after noting that the assessee had died and the legal heirs could not effectively pursue the proceedings. The Tribunal granted one final opportunity for fresh adjudication on merits.
The issue involved unexplained bank credits treated under Section 69A. The Tribunal held that the assessee proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, leading to deletion of the addition.
The case examined validity of a reassessment notice issued beyond statutory limits. The ITAT held the notice invalid as it exceeded the permissible time period. It reinforces strict compliance with limitation provisions.
