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 held that a penalty under Section 271AAB cannot survive where the show cause notice fails to specify the exact statutory clause invoked. It ruled that such a vague notice violates the requirement of informing the assessee of the precise charge, leading to deletion of the penalty.
The ITAT held that the addition under Section 69A could not be sustained as the assessee had produced land records, agricultural sale bills, and bank statements supporting the agricultural income. The Tribunal found that these documents had been ignored during assessment.
The ITAT Lucknow upheld deletion of the addition after finding that the cash deposits represented business receipts arising from disclosed sales and were duly recorded in the books of account. It held that section 69A could not be invoked on the facts of the case.
The ITAT Delhi deleted the addition under section 69A after finding that the assessee had substantiated the source of the jewellery through a Will, affidavit, purchase bills, bank statements, and other documentary evidence. It held that the jewellery stood satisfactorily explained.
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition seeking action on an alleged tax evasion complaint, holding that no case for issuing a writ of mandamus was made out at that stage. It found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s order.
The ITAT Ahmedabad admitted additional evidence relating to foreign remittances and restored the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication. It held that the documents were necessary for proper determination of the issues.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that unexplained investment under Section 69 can be taxed only in the year the investment is actually made. Since the property payments were made in an earlier financial year, the additions for A.Y. 2016-17 were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s contention regarding ownership of the bank account required proper verification before sustaining the addition under Section 69A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in sustaining the addition once the assessee substantiated the source of the cash deposited. The Tribunal accepted the documentary evidence and deleted the addition under Section 69A.
The ITAT Surat held that cash deposited during demonetisation was sufficiently explained through opening cash-in-hand, prior bank withdrawals, and cash received from the deceased husband. It ruled that Section 69A addition could not be sustained merely on assumptions about human conduct.
