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 reassessment was struck down because it relied exclusively on third-party search material. The ruling clarifies that section 153C, not section 147, must be invoked where incriminating evidence emerges from another persons search.
The AO had treated all bank cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that regular cash sales explained most deposits and restricted the addition to ₹10 lakh only.
The dispute involved taxability of large cash deposits made during demonetisation. The appellate authority granted relief for deposits in regular notes while sustaining the balance as unexplained income. The Tribunal upheld this approach, finding it consistent with law and facts.
The Tribunal observed serious procedural lapses, including reliance on an unsigned third-party ledger and denial of cross-examination. To balance equities, only an estimated profit portion was brought to tax.
The Tribunal found that additions under section 69A were made without examining evidence due to non-compliance. The matter was remanded to allow verification of claimed trading and agricultural receipts.
The Tribunal clarified that the law does not permit selective or partial rejection of books under Section 145(3). In absence of specific defects, additions based on probabilities alone were set aside.
The tribunal held that taxing the full sale consideration as short-term capital gain without allowing cost of acquisition is legally incorrect. Capital gains must be computed on net gains, not gross receipts.
The tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153C cannot stand without valid satisfaction as mandated by law. Failure to examine this jurisdictional issue vitiates the proceedings.
The tribunal held that estimating commission income at 1% without verifying the existence of a genuine Shroff business was legally unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The core issue was whether lack of knowledge of proceedings justified late appeals. The Tribunal held that notices sent to an inaccessible email amounted to sufficient cause. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness.
