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 ruled that unexplained money provisions cannot be applied on conjectures when the source of cash is reasonably explained. With no dispute on withdrawals and savings, the demonetisation-period addition failed on merits.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits could be added as unexplained despite income being declared under section 44AD. The Tribunal held that presumptive taxation shields routine business deposits, though a reasonable lump-sum addition was justified where receipts were partly unsubstantiated.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money towards bogus long term capital gains not sustained since assessee has proved the genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares as ordinary investor.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A applies only to money not recorded in books of account. Additions based on duly recorded, bank-routed transactions were found unsustainable.
The assessee claimed the firm had dissolved and deposits belonged to a partner. The Tribunal held that absence of documentary proof justified treating bank deposits as unexplained income.
The Tribunal deleted an addition under Section 69A after holding that cash deposits were explained through prior bank withdrawals. The ruling affirms that redeposit of own withdrawn cash cannot be treated as unexplained.
ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 69C cannot be made if the AO exceeds the scope of directions issued under Section 263, emphasizing procedural compliance.
The dispute concerned rejection of explanation for cash deposits due to lack of documentation. The Tribunal ruled that evidence relating to sale of inherited assets was vital and must be examined afresh by the tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that past cash withdrawals cannot justify demonetisation deposits without evidence of continued cash holding. The is that unexplained deposits attract section 69A.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 is invalid if notice under Section 143(2) is not issued after filing of return. Entire proceedings quashed for procedural lapse.
