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 the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence. Addition under Section 69A was deleted as the AO failed to rebut the explanation.
The tribunal held that cash deposits backed by sales records cannot be treated as unexplained income. It upheld deletion of addition where transactions were properly documented.
Smt. Satyabhama Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The Hyderabad ITAT deleted the addition of ₹16.55 lakh u/s 69A, holding that cash found during search was duly explained by earlier accepted cash balance. The Tribunal also condoned a 97-day delay, adopting a liberal approach considering the assessee’s age, lack of digital access, and procedural difficulties. On merits, […]
he issue was whether penalty under Section 271E can stand after deletion of the underlying addition. The tribunal held that once the addition is deleted, the penalty loses its foundation and must be cancelled.
The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification and corroboration, such evidence is insufficient and proceedings are invalid.
The Tribunal held that cash disclosed in earlier returns can explain seized cash. It restricted addition to the unexplained portion. Key takeaway: prior disclosures carry strong evidentiary value.
The issue was reopening based on incorrect cash deposit figures exceeding ₹50 lakh. The Tribunal held actual amount was lower, making notice time-barred and invalid.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C cannot be sustained when based on unverified third-party statements and documents. It found the evidence lacked credibility and was not corroborated. The ruling highlights strict evidentiary standards in search-based assessments.
ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 249(4)(b) cannot bar appeal where no income is admitted and no advance tax is payable; sets aside dismissal and directs AO to treat demonetisation cash deposits as business turnover (if normal) and estimate income u/s 44AD instead of Section 69A addition.
The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 69A since the evidence pertained to a partnership firm. It held that without proof of personal receipt, income cannot be taxed in the partner’s hands.
