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 Mumbai quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was obtained from the wrong authority. Notice under Section 148 held invalid, making entire proceedings void ab initio.
Despite delay and repeated non-appearance, the Tribunal remanded the matter with a ₹10,000 cost. The ruling balances taxpayer conduct with the need for fair adjudication.
The Tribunal held that addition of entire cash deposits without proper verification was not justified. The matter was remanded for fresh examination with an opportunity to substantiate business transactions.
Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liability on taxpayers to justify the nature and source of funds.
The issue was whether disclosed investments could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that Section 69 cannot be invoked when investments are recorded and taxed, upholding deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that additions based on presumptions without evidence cannot be sustained fully. It reduced the addition on unexplained cash deposits from 10% to 5%, granting relief to the assessee.
The case involved unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal upheld addition for unexplained shortage but deleted addition where advances were supported by evidence.
The issue involved addition under Section 69A for demonetization cash deposits. The Tribunal held that once sale consideration was accepted as source, the addition could not be sustained.
The issue involved treating cash deposits as unexplained despite being part of recorded sales. The Tribunal held that taxing the same income again results in impermissible double taxation.
The issue was addition of cash deposits during demonetisation as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that the assessee’s explanation supported by affidavit was credible, leading to deletion of the addition.
