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 reassessment beyond four years is invalid where the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during original scrutiny. In absence of failure to disclose, reopening under Section 147 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an uncorroborated statement recorded from another person. In absence of independent evidence, the ₹1.80 crore addition was deleted.
While noting deficiencies in supporting evidence, the ITAT found that entire addition of ₹50.90 lakh was not sustainable. The addition was restricted to 10% of purchases due to absence of book rejection.
ITAT ruled that reliance on statements without offering cross-examination and without supporting evidence violates principles of natural justice. Additions under Sections 69A and 153C were set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessment order was invalid as it was not served in accordance with Section 282 and Rule 127. In absence of proof of proper service within limitation, the entire assessment was quashed as void.
Holding that the search team did not examine the source of cash properly, the Tribunal directed bifurcation of penalty—30% on declared income and 60% on unexplained income.
Observing that the assessee invested the entire share of sale proceeds within two years and obtained possession, ITAT Pune allowed Section 54B exemption. The addition under Section 69A was consequently deleted.
The Tribunal held that treating part of the disclosed sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit amounts to double taxation. It directed deletion of the addition to the extent linked to the accepted sale consideration.
The Tribunal condoned a 298-day delay in filing appeal, holding that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. It deleted additions on exempt gratuity and commuted pension, ruling they cannot be taxed as salary.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer must prove actual possession of unexplained money with cogent evidence. Mere suspicion or reliance on third-party search statements is insufficient to justify addition under Section 115BBE.
