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 AO added ₹1 crore based on alleged cash receipts from third-party material. The Tribunal held the reopening itself was invalid, so the addition could not survive.
The AO questioned genuineness and love and affection behind the gift. The ITAT held that once relationship and capacity are proved through documents, no addition can survive.
The tribunal held that where key sales and purchase documents were not examined at assessment, the issue must be remanded. Cash deposit additions were set aside for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The issue was whether reassessment becomes invalid when the return is filed on the same day as the assessment order. The Tribunal held that such belated filing cannot nullify a best-judgment reassessment.
The issue was whether cash found at a third party’s premises could be added in the assessee’s 153A assessment. The Tribunal held such additions invalid, ruling that proceedings must be initiated under section 153C.
ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to examine bank statements and supporting documents explaining cash deposits. The issue was restored for fresh verification with due opportunity to the assessee.
Additions under section 153A were deleted as they rested only on an unowned diary without proof of authorship or corroborative evidence. The ruling reinforces that suspicion cannot substitute proof in search cases.
The case examined a large disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) for purchases from a group concern. The Tribunal ruled that without market comparables or proof of inflated pricing, related-party payments cannot be treated as excessive.
Delhi ITAT ruled that purchases from paper companies cannot be treated as normal business expenses under Section 37(1). Fraudulent transactions with no goods delivered attract unexplained expenditure taxation under Section 69C and 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that revision cannot be based on alleged lack of enquiry when detailed verification was already done. A mere change of opinion does not justify section 263 action.
