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 once satisfaction is recorded under Section 153C, assessment for covered years must proceed strictly under that provision. Framing assessment under Section 143(3) was declared jurisdictionally invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal restored the matter after holding that dismissal of the appeal without giving a chance to explain delay and cash deposits was not justified.
Calcutta High Court held that in a proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act of 1961, the PCIT is empowered to make such inquiry as he deems necessary and inspection of seized assets may very well form part of such inquiry. Accordingly, notice of inspection is duly sustainable and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
The Revenue treated cash deposits as unexplained under Section 69A despite matching withdrawals and opening cash balance. The Tribunal ruled that redeposit of available cash cannot be taxed as unexplained income.
The reassessment was challenged for want of proper approval. The Tribunal ruled that ritualistic sanction under Section 151 defeats jurisdiction and renders the reopening void.
The assessee challenged jurisdiction for lack of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal held that once the belated return was invalid, assessment under Section 144 was lawful.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A applies only when the assessee is found to be the owner of money or assets. Mere suspicion or digital communication cannot replace proof of possession or ownership.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash can only be assessed in the year in which it is seized. An addition made in an incorrect assessment year is legally unsustainable and must be deleted.
The case addressed overlapping taxation of seized cash and disclosed unaccounted profits. The final ruling emphasized substance over form and deleted the addition by extending telescoping benefits to the partner.
The issue was whether CBDT jewellery instructions could shield bullion found during a search from taxation. The Tribunal held that the instruction applies only to jewellery, not bullion, and upheld the Section 69A addition.
