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 issue was whether reassessment beyond three years is valid for small additions. ITAT held that without meeting the ₹50 lakh threshold under Section 149, the notice is void.
The tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when sufficient recorded cash receipts exist. Once books support availability, Section 68 additions fail.
ITAT Mumbai deletes ₹27.40 lakh addition under Section 69A, holding cash deposits as genuine business advances for car bookings, duly supported by confirmations, PAN, and invoices; non-response of customers cannot justify addition without proper verification.
ITAT Hyderabad quashes reassessment as Section 148 notice, though dated 31.03.2021, was actually issued on 01.04.2021; failure to follow mandatory Section 148A procedure and obtain proper approval rendered proceedings invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes Section 69A additions in alleged penny stock case, holding that documented share transactions cannot be treated as bogus based on suspicion or general investigation reports without specific evidence against the assessee.
The issue involved additions based on mismatch between property registration and payment dates. The Tribunal held that delayed encashment of cheques does not indicate unexplained investment. It concluded that the additions lacked factual basis and directed deletion.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹8.44 crore was unsustainable as it was based on incorrect assumptions about multiple bank accounts. It ruled that properly recorded and explained transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. It ruled that invoking extended time under Section 149 without satisfying this condition is illegal.
The tribunal held that penalty for non-appearance cannot be sustained when reasonable cause exists. Ignorance of proceedings and factual circumstances justified relief.
The High Court held that once the assessee failed to explain the source, addition was justified only to the extent of cash actually seized. It ruled that the AO cannot arbitrarily add a higher amount than the proven seized sum.
