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 Pune held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was approved by the Principal Commissioner instead of the authority prescribed under Section 151(ii). The reassessment order was declared void ab initio.
Bangalore ITAT held that cash redeposited during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69A when the assessee established that it originated from earlier bank withdrawals.
Bangalore ITAT held that customer deposits representing sale proceeds could not be taxed in full as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate business income at 8% of the receipts, holding that only the profit element was taxable.
Bangalore ITAT deleted the addition under Section 69A after holding that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits with supporting documents and the Assessing Officer failed to disprove the explanation.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where they were sourced from earlier withdrawals from the same bank account. It ruled that, in the absence of evidence showing the withdrawn cash was used elsewhere, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits recorded in audited books of account could not be treated as unexplained merely because they included specified bank notes. Since the Revenue found no defects in the books or evidence of bogus receipts, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
The ITAT upheld deletion of the Section 69A addition after finding that the bank credits were satisfactorily explained as insurance premium collections and related transactions. It held that the Revenue failed to produce evidence contradicting the assessee’s explanation.
The ITAT held that an opening cash balance cannot be treated as unexplained merely because the previous year’s income tax return reflected nil cash. It deleted the addition after accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding accumulated withdrawals from taxed income.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any material establishing a connection between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entry provider. It upheld the deletion of the Section 69A addition for lack of supporting evidence.
The ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was adequately explained through instrument charges consistently disclosed in earlier years. It deleted the addition under Section 69A after finding the source of cash established.
