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...
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal accepted possible redeposit of earlier withdrawals and restricted the addition to ₹2 lakh.
The Revenue taxed entire demonetisation cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A with section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that cash sales are possible in retail trade and restricted the addition to a 10% GP estimate.
The Revenue treated entire cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that in an unorganised business, deposits can be treated as turnover with estimated profits.
The dispute concerned cancellation of IDS benefits due to non-payment. The Tribunal held that once IDS lapses, undisclosed income is taxable with mandatory penalty.
The issue was whether year-old cash withdrawals could explain demonetisation-era deposits. ITAT held that absence of a direct nexus and contrary bank entries justified addition under section 69A.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that satisfaction must be recorded contemporaneously or immediately after the searched person’s assessment. Any belated recording invalidates the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C.
ITAT Rajkot held that there is no escapement of income or loss of revenue since tax paid on the basis of consolidated profit of both the partnership firm and hence reassessment proceedings are not sustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that after primary evidence is furnished, the assessee is not required to prove the source of source under section 68, especially where the AO fails to conduct enquiry u/s 131 or 133(6).
The Tribunal quashed reassessment where the Assessing Officer invoked section 147 without examining books of account or correlating bank deposits with returned income.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 on 31.07.2022 for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation under the amended section 149. Reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.
