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...
Applying a liberal approach, the tribunal condoned delay in appeal filing and examined the jurisdictional defect. Since reopening was initiated by the wrong authority, the assessment could not survive.
he tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless authority violate the mandatory faceless assessment framework. Such jurisdictional defects render the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal found the appellate order mechanical where Rule 46A evidence was filed but not examined. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
Demonetisation cash deposits cannot be taxed merely on suspicion when supported by statutory VAT/Excise records, sales growth, and business expansion. Rule 46A(4) empowers CIT(A) to call for such evidence without triggering procedural violations.
The issue was whether demonetisation-era deposits could be taxed despite admitted prior withdrawals. ITAT held that when withdrawals are genuine and the occasion is real, section 69A cannot be applied on presumptions.
ITAT Hyderabad held that trade advance given to goldsmith for making gold jewellery and excess amount paid has been received back in cash. The same cannot be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 is directed to be deleted.
The AO invoked Explanation 1(v) to section 153 to justify delay. The Tribunal clarified that an invalid 142A reference gives no such protection, rendering the order time-barred.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited from recorded demonetisation-period sales cannot be treated as unexplained when books and VAT turnover are accepted. Suspicion without evidence cannot justify section 69A additions.
The assessee could not respond to notices due to death during proceedings. ITAT ruled that bona fide non-compliance cannot override documentary evidence that fully explains the source of cash deposits.
The issue was whether property investment could be treated as unexplained in reassessment proceedings. The ITAT held that where bank trails, NRE accounts, and loan documents fully explain the source, additions cannot survive.
