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 clarified that a statement recorded during search does not automatically become incriminating material. Without supporting documentary evidence, additions under Section 69A cannot survive.
The Tribunal emphasized that documentary evidence including bank statements and lender confirmations sufficiently explained the disputed credits. It held that no addition for unexplained money was warranted.
The Tribunal held that accumulated savings and customary cash gifts over 40 years of marital life were a plausible explanation for seized cash. It deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when the bank account is recorded in audited books and disclosed in the ITR. In absence of contrary evidence, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
The ITAT deleted addition under Section 69A where cash deposits were made in a joint account. Since the husband owned the deposits and was not cross-examined, taxing the wife was held unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that accepting share capital and unsecured loans without proper verification violates Section 68 requirements. It upheld the Principal CITs revision order, stating that failure to investigate renders the order prejudicial to revenue.
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained as business sales declared under Section 44AD. Without disproving turnover, addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
ITAT held that once identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor were established, addition under Section 69 was unsustainable. The creditors disclosure before the Settlement Commission supported the assessee’s claim.
ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remaining unexplained amount was reduced on an estimated basis.
