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 cash deposits were largely explained through earlier withdrawals and business receipts. Only an estimated 10% addition was sustained, and harsh taxation under section 115BBE was ruled out.
Where updated cash books explained the cash found and no defects were pointed out, additions under section 69A were held unsustainable. Substantiation with regular books prevailed over search-time snapshots.
The Tribunal found that reasonable opportunity was not given at assessment or appellate stage. The ₹17.94 lakh addition was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
The case examined whether a General Power of Attorney could be treated as a Joint Development Agreement for taxing capital gains. The Tribunal held that a GPA does not amount to a transfer, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that estimating profit at 20% of turnover in a milk trading business was arbitrary and unsupported by industry realities. It restricted the gross profit rate to 5%, recognising wastage, spoilage, and thin margins typical to the trade.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
ITAT Chennai held that section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 cannot be invoked since Form 2 as contemplated under Income Declaration Scheme not served. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69A made in assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 liable to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that for an unabated year, additions under section 153A require incriminating material. A seized loose sheet and retracted statements lacked corroboration, leading to deletion of the ₹100 crore addition.
ITAT Patna held that consolidated approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act granted in mechanical manner by JCIT without application of mind is invalid and hence assessment framed thereon is liable to be quashed.
