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 adding both cash deposits and withdrawals may result in double taxation. The case was remanded for fresh examination with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that eligibility for Section 80P depends on actual activities, not the society’s name. Deduction was allowed as the society provided credit facilities to members.
The Tribunal held that absence of bills for agricultural sales cannot justify addition under Section 69A. Where cultivation and land ownership are undisputed, receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The issue was whether rejection of books and GP estimation was justified due to missing records. ITAT upheld the addition, ruling that failure to produce bills, vouchers, and stock records justified estimation.
The tribunal held that government support includes capital grants, land, and infrastructure, not just recurring funding. This broader interpretation justified exemption eligibility.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
The dispute concerned alleged bogus agricultural income taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal set aside the addition and directed the AO to re-examine evidence before reaching a conclusion.
The Tribunal ruled that incorrect invocation of Section 69A does not invalidate the addition. Since the loan was found to be an accommodation entry, it was sustained under Section 68. The decision emphasizes substance over technical defects.
The ITAT held that no addition can be made under Section 69A when the source of cash is explained through bank withdrawals. Doubts about utilisation alone cannot justify treating it as unexplained money.
The Tribunal held that commission income cannot be computed on internal or circular banking transactions. It reduced the commission rate from 1.75% to 0.47% and directed recomputation after verification. The ruling emphasizes accurate determination of real in-come.
