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 Revenue treated seized cash entries as unexplained income under Section 69A. The Tribunal ruled that receipts from agricultural activities are exempt and cannot be taxed merely based on seized notings.
The reassessment relied entirely on allegations arising from a search on another entity. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot survive without independent evidence directly linking the assessee.
The issue was whether third-party diaries and loose papers could establish receipt of unaccounted income. The Tribunal ruled that such papers, without authorship verification or corroboration, cannot fasten tax liability.
The issue was whether reassessment after three years was barred by limitation. The Tribunal held it valid since the escaped income exceeded ₹50 lakh, attracting the extended reopening window.
It was held that documented capital contributions supported by affidavits, bank records, and land evidence are explained credits. Assessing authorities cannot disregard undisputed financial capacity.
While reopening of assessment was sustained due to bank deposit information, the cash addition was deleted on merits. Proper explanation of source defeats Section 69A.
It was ruled that money received from a parent through banking channels constitutes an explained source. The addition under Section 69A was deleted as the transaction was fully traceable.
The issue was whether sale involved only land or land with a residential house. The Tribunal ruled that the property sold included a residential structure, entitling the assessee to Section 54 exemption upon deposit in the capital gains scheme.
ITAT Indore held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained deposit is unsustainable in law since the nature and source of the deposit is sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and addition u/s. 69A is deleted.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits and unsecured loans could be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit is taxable and restricted the addition to 10%.
