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 ruled that invoking clause (i) instead of clauses (iii)/(iv) of Explanation 2 was legally incorrect where material belonged to another person. The reassessment proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
ITAT Raipur held that Section 249(4)(b) applies only where advance tax was legally payable. In absence of taxable income and advance tax liability, dismissal of appeal was set aside and matter restored for decision on merits.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹2 crore additions, holding assessment based solely on third-party investigation report and assumed 3% commission unsustainable without independent evidence or proof under Sec 69A.
The Tribunal ruled that rectification proceedings under Section 154 are limited to correcting apparent mistakes and cannot be a vehicle to dispute original additions. The appeal was therefore rightly rejected.
The Tribunal held that in completed assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during search. The addition under Section 68 was annulled as jurisdiction was invalid.
ITAT ruled that mere reference to high-value transactions cannot justify reopening beyond three years. Absence of statutory conditions under Section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment void.
The ITAT Bangalore held that where incriminating documents relating to an assessee are found during a search conducted on another person, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C and not under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 is invalid when the assessment year is the year of search. Such cases must proceed under normal assessment provisions.
The Tribunal held that exclusion of time for transfer of seized material applies only within the running limitation period. As the assessment was passed beyond the recalculated deadline, it was quashed as barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that share transactions relating to an earlier assessment year cannot be taxed in a subsequent year. Since the Revenue failed to link them to AY 2018-19, the addition was deleted.
