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 Hyderabad held that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, post introduction of ‘Faceless Jurisdiction of Income tax Authorities Scheme, 2022, is bad and illegal in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon is quashed and set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition made on the basis of third-party WhatsApp chat without any incriminating material is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal considered whether RTGS credits constituted unexplained money. It ruled that once sale bills, customer ledgers, and bank entries align, Section 69A has no application.
The Tribunal deleted both substantive and protective additions made across multiple years on the same alleged receipts. It held that such duplication results in impermissible multiple taxation of identical amounts.
The Tribunal examined whether Section 153A could be applied to the search year itself. It held that invoking Section 153A for the wrong assessment year was invalid, rendering the assessment void.
The Tribunal held that serving notices on an outdated email ID violates principles of natural justice. The assessment was set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication after proper service.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits arising from regulated liquor sales are a normal business incident. Where bank reconciliations explain the source, Section 69A cannot be invoked.
Cash deposits followed by regular transfers to the telecom operator established a clear business cycle. The ruling confirms that explained business receipts cannot be treated as unexplained cash.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations cannot be denied merely due to technical lapses like student collection or minor PAN errors. Donor intent and consistent treatment in books were sufficient to allow exemption under section 11(1)(d).
The Tribunal held that receipts already offered under the presumptive scheme cannot be taxed again as unexplained money. Once income is declared under section 44AD and supported by surrounding facts, section 69A has no application.
