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...
ITAT Delhi held that mere Whatsapp messages showing demand do not justify Section 69A additions unless actual receipt of money is proved.
The dispute concerned computation of capital gains on sale of shares affected by corporate actions. The Tribunal affirmed that detailed tranche-wise analysis and statutory indexation justified allowance of long-term capital loss.
The dispute involved taxing deposits despite a declared loss. The Tribunal held that when accounts show a loss, blanket addition of deposits is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening beyond four years must be granted by the specified higher authority. Approval by a Joint Commissioner was found incompetent and void. Consequently, the reassessment was struck down as without jurisdiction.
The ITAT held that loans and advances accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments cannot be doubted later without fresh incriminating material. Mere balance-sheet analysis or suspicion is insufficient.
The ITAT held that unrecorded sales cannot be taxed in full under Section 69A. Only the profit element at a reasonable GP rate is assessable as business income.
The case involved reassessment based on alleged cash payment for property. The Tribunal held that basic fact-checking is mandatory before confirming a ₹71.23 lakh addition under Section 69A.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The ITAT held that the appellate authority mechanically affirmed reassessment additions without independent examination of merits. The matter was remanded to grant the assessee a fair and effective opportunity to explain cash deposits and other additions.
The ITAT ruled that section 69A cannot be invoked unless ownership of cash is established. Mere third-party seized ledgers without recovery of money are insufficient to sustain an addition.
