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 reassessment was framed ex-parte after notices were served on a wrong email address. ITAT Delhi ruled that effective hearing is a sine qua non under the law, and proceedings based on faulty service cannot stand. The case was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal examined opening cash balance of ₹6.16 lakh brought forward from prior year. CIT(A) had disallowed it, but AO verification confirmed its genuineness. ITAT set aside the addition under Section 69A and allowed the appeal.
The assessee alleged denial of opportunity and improper handling of evidence. The Tribunal agreed that the appellate order was passed without due consideration of records and remand findings. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that accepting demonetised currency beyond the permitted date does not ipso facto create unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee’s cash sales were already included in gross turnover, so no further addition was justified.
The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 10,00,059/- as the addition was based solely on uncorroborated third-party information. No primary evidence linked the assessee to the alleged accommodation entries.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 1.03 crore added under Section 69A, holding that funds remitted from the USA originated from disclosed long-term capital gains. Detailed bank records and SWIFT copies substantiated the source beyond doubt.
ITAT held that entire cash deposits of a business correspondent cannot be treated as unexplained income without verification. The AO must examine whether deposits were bank collections or the assessee’s own money.
Delhi appellate authority’s ex-parte confirmation of unexplained money under Section 69A was set aside. ITAT directed CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate afresh, granting one final hearing opportunity.
