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 were rightly taxed as unexplained money when the assessee failed to discharge the primary burden of proof. Absence of contemporaneous evidence defeats claims of redeposit of cash.
The Tribunal struck down reopening where reasons conflicted and rested solely on AIR cash-deposit data. The key takeaway is that reassessment needs a clear, reasoned nexus.
The ITAT held that cash redeposited after a clearly documented bank withdrawal cannot be treated as unexplained. The ruling emphasizes that verifiable fund movement defeats section 69A additions.
Hyderabad ITAT held that even a delayed return filed during assessment is valid, and absence of mandatory Section 143(2) notice renders the entire assessment void.
The issue was unexplained partner capital contribution. The ITAT held that clear proof of funding by the NRI husband with sufficient creditworthiness bars addition under section 69A.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that credit entries in the assessee’s account were correctly assessed, even though initial cash deposits belonged to a company, ensuring proper attribution of income.
The Revenue relied only on the builder’s settlement disclosure to tax the buyer. The ITAT held that third-party admissions, without corroboration or cross-examination, cannot fasten liability on the assessee.
Ahmedabad ITAT deleted Rs. 9.64 lakh addition under Section 69A, holding that only net interest income is taxable after deducting interest expenditure on borrowed funds.
The issue was whether unexplained deposits of ₹94.89 lakh could be sustained when evidence was not produced due to a serious family medical crisis. The ITAT held that genuine hardship warranted a fresh opportunity and remanded the matter for proper verification.
The Revenue invoked section 115BBE based on cash found during proceedings. However, the Tribunal found the foundational approval under section 153D defective. The entire assessment was therefore quashed.
