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 that a 148 notice issued on 03.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 violated Section 149(1)(b)’s six-year limitation, rendering entire reassessment void. The is that notices issued after 31.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 are invalid.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits are explained when supported by corresponding withdrawals, even without precise mapping. Once the assessee shows availability of funds, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut the explanation. The addition under Section 69A was deleted in full.
The ITAT held that cash deposits recorded in books and from legitimate business sales during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 69A. Entire addition of ₹45.23 lakh was quashed.
The ITAT ruled that a vague, copy-paste satisfaction note cannot confer valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since no specific seized documents were identified, the entire assessment was struck down.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that unexplained partner capital contributions cannot be treated as income of the firm. Only individual partners’ contributions can be assessed, overturning a Rs. 3.26 crore addition.
The ITAT Pune remanded a case where the first appellate authority dismissed an appeal ex-parte. taxpayers must be given a fair hearing before dismissal, reinforcing the principle of natural justice.
Appeal delayed by 252 days due to counsel’s oversight was condoned by ITAT citing reasonable diligence. Tribunal then reduced unexplained cash addition under Section 69A to ₹1.8 lakh using a fair estimation method.
The ITAT deleted Rs. 59.39 lakh added under Section 69A, holding that the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetisation were fully explained via cash books and bank statements. The ruling reinforces that documented withdrawals cannot be treated as unexplained income without contrary evidence.
The Tribunal concluded that section 189 is only a machinery provision and cannot be invoked to assess alleged income arising long after a firm has ceased to exist. Since no evidence showed any business activity post-2012, the reopening for AY 2017-18 was invalid. The order quashing the reassessment also nullified the related addition and penalty.
Demat and broker records showed actual purchases of Rs. 1.24 crore and sales of Rs. 85 lakh, contradicting the AO’s addition of Rs. 2.11 crore. The Tribunal remitted the matter for detailed examination. Proper transaction-wise verification is essential before treating share activity as unexplained income.
