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 examined cash deposits made during the demonetisation period and accepted explanations relating to past savings and business collections. Only the agricultural income claim was remanded for limited verification.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could dismiss an appeal ex-parte without giving detailed reasons. The Tribunal held that a non-speaking order violates section 250(6) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that once a closing cash balance is disclosed and accepted in a prior year’s scrutiny assessment, it cannot be questioned as unexplained opening cash in a subsequent year.
Sanjay Champalal Jaiswal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Reopening Beyond Three Years Invalid Where Escapement Is Below ₹50 Lakh — ITAT Pune Quashes Reassessment The Pune SMC Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment for AY 2016-17, holding that the notice under section 148 dated 27-07-2022 was without jurisdiction, as the alleged income escaping assessment was […]
The Tribunal held that when reassessment is based on material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147. Reopening under Section 147 was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that shares acquired directly from promoters through preferential allotment require strict scrutiny when linked to abnormal price rise. Failure to establish commercial rationale justified restoring the matter for fresh verification.
Whether large cash deposits during demonetisation could be explained as cash sales. Ruling & Takeaway: The Tribunal upheld addition under section 69A, finding implausible sales patterns, rejected books, and lack of evidence; human probability prevailed over book entries.
The Tribunal held that no commission income can arise from circular transactions within group entities. Additions based on estimated commission for such intra-group sales were deleted.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without issuing a compulsory notice under section 153C lacks jurisdiction. Even seized material cannot cure this foundational defect, rendering the order void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that the AO had examined land records, crop sale documents, and other evidence before making the assessment. Since due inquiry was conducted, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
