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 held that reassessment initiated by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless scheme became mandatory was invalid. The key takeaway is that failure to follow the faceless mechanism nullifies the entire reopening, regardless of merits.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits representing trading receipts cannot be taxed in full as unexplained income. Only the estimated profit portion was directed to be assessed.
The issue was whether reassessment and appellate orders could stand when participation was ineffective and grounds remained undecided. The Tribunal ruled that justice required restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal observed that Way Bills produced by the assessee prima facie supported the claim of business sales. The addition was therefore set aside and restored for fresh verification.
The tribunal deleted the balance addition of ₹91,090 after finding that the amounts represented periodic rental receipts duly disclosed with TDS credit. The key takeaway is that disclosed income cannot be re-taxed as unexplained cash.
The ITAT set aside a ₹1.86 crore addition under section 69A for unexplained deposits, noting the deposits were likely student fees. The ruling emphasizes the need to verify exempt income before making tax additions.
The ITAT held that equity share purchases routed through the disclosed bank account cannot be treated as unexplained without proper verification. The AO was directed to provide transaction details and re-examine the source to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal held that income admitted during search cannot be treated as undisclosed income unless supported by incriminating material found in the search. In the absence of such material, penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal found that notices issued manually by the jurisdictional officer contravene the faceless reassessment framework. There is no concurrent jurisdiction between faceless and jurisdictional officers. Any reassessment initiated this way is invalid from inception.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that unexplained cash credit under Section 68 must be netted off against business income to prevent double addition. The ruling ensures accurate assessment and fair taxation.
