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...
Tribunal ruled Section 54F exemption is not available when the assessee owns multiple independent residential units, each with a separate kitchen. Deduction on the JDA property was disallowed.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that WhatsApp chats without corroboration cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. All additions based solely on chats were deleted, emphasizing the need for tangible evidence.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was legally sound and unaffected by arguments based on 153C or Notification 18/2022. Still, it directed a full rehearing because the appellate authority issued non-speaking orders without examining the merits.
ITAT Hyderabad rules that gross sale proceeds of capital assets cannot be treated as taxable income without allowing cost of acquisition. Tribunal orders reassessment to compute correct capital gains, despite assessee’s non-compliance.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence such as partnership deeds, royalty ledgers, and source-wise cash deposit mapping. Since AO never verified these materials, the addition under Section 69A could not be sustained. The issue was restored for proper factual examination.
ITAT Raipur ruled that cash deposits made by an advocate on behalf of clients cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO and CIT(A)/NFAC conducted no inquiry and ignored over 100 supporting challans. This reinforces the principle that evidence and factual verification are essential before making additions.
Evidence demonstrated frequent withdrawals and redeposits across years, confirming the legitimacy of the cash held. The Tribunal ruled that the deposits were fully explained, warranting removal of the Section 69A/115BBE addition.
ITAT held that the assessee operated as a commission agent, not a trader, making Section 44AD inapplicable. A reasonable 5% estimation on cash deposits was upheld.
The ITAT ruled that unresolved legal grounds—especially on reassessment validity—must first be decided by the CIT(A). The ₹3.32 crore Section 69A addition is remanded for proper adjudication.
Additions based on decoded entries from a third-party cash book were struck down, as they did not align with the assessee’s audited books or bank statements, reinforcing the ‘dumb document’ principle.
