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...
This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the applicable penalty amounts for different types of tax defaults and compliance failures.
The ITAT ruled that approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner is mandatory for reopening assessments beyond three years. Since approval was obtained from an incorrect authority, the reassessment was declared void and the addition was deleted.
The ITAT deleted an addition relating to an NRE account after finding that the credits were linked to overseas salary remittances and lacked evidence of unexplained income. It remanded the larger addition for fresh verification due to inadequate SFT reconciliation.
The ITAT held that relying on tally data and a forensic report without providing them to the assessee violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer while retaining the commission rate at 0.15%.
The ITAT Delhi held that a consolidated satisfaction note covering several assessment years without year-specific analysis failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 153C. It quashed the assessment and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)’s order annulling assessments because the search was not conducted in the assessee’s name. It also noted that the Revenue’s appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The ITAT Mumbai held that cash deposits during the demonetization period could not be treated as unexplained where the assessee’s books of account, stock records, and VAT returns supported the transactions. As no defects were found in the books, the addition under Sections 68/69A was deleted.
ITAT ruled that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was unsustainable as it exceeded the limitation period prescribed by the Income-tax Act. The decision highlights that statutory timelines cannot be ignored without supporting evidence from the Revenue.
ITAT Bangalore held that once a search under Section 132 was conducted, the assessment for the relevant year had to proceed under Section 147/148 in accordance with the post-2021 statutory scheme.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remanded the assessment after holding that documentary evidence relating to cash deposits, members’ records and audit reports required proper verification. The Tribunal directed a fresh assessment without expressing any opinion on the merits.
