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...
Assessee proved long-term capital gains of ₹1 crore from Mishkafin Finance shares via broker notes, bank statements, and STT-paid transactions. Addition under section 69A was deleted due to lack of evidence.
ITAT held that cash deposits made by directors before investing in share capital cannot be treated as unexplained income of the company. The ruling emphasizes that proper identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness documentation must be evaluated before invoking Section 68.
ITAT holds that ignoring a valid online reply and supporting records vitiates reassessment; AO must first verify whether deposits were already in books before taxing. Key takeaway: non-consideration of evidence makes additions unsustainable.
The ITAT held that notices under Section 148 issued by JAO post-29.03.2022 lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment was annulled, emphasizing only Faceless Assessing Officers can issue such notices.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for verification of corporate credit card payments. The decision emphasizes that taxpayers must be provided a final opportunity to substantiate deposits and income before any additions are finalized. This safeguards procedural fairness in tax proceedings.
Tribunal held that a reassessment cannot be triggered solely on another person’s search statement. With no evidence against the assessee, the 147 proceedings and bogus-purchase addition were struck down.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits were fully explained through matching earlier withdrawals. The addition of ₹15 lakh was removed as the source of funds was satisfactorily proven.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 68 additions cannot apply when a company maintains no books of account, deleting ₹51 lakh and ₹1.25 crore additions. Confirms that technical defaults cannot override proper accounting requirements.
Rakesh Arora Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) When the Reason Falls, the Case Falls: Rs. 3.14 Cr Trigger Proves False — ITAT Delhi Quashes Whole 147 The reassessment for AY 2012–13 was triggered solely on the allegation that the assessee had received accommodation entries of ₹3,14,16,000 from M/s Shreyas International. However, at the time of completing […]
The Tribunal ruled that audited books cannot be discarded based on generic doubts or missing vouchers. Without identifying concrete defects, the AO’s rejection of books and 12.5% profit estimation were found legally unsustainable.
