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...
ITAT held that cash deposits made during demonetization without proof of source justified addition under Section 69A. The ruling reinforces that dissolved entities must substantiate cash claims with evidence.
ITAT Rajkot partly allowed appeal, directing that 90% of cash deposited during demonetisation be accepted as explained, with only 10% taxable under normal income tax.
Tribunal invalidated the reassessment because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain mandatory approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii), rendering the Section 148 notice void.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹38 lakh additions under Sections 68 and 69A, accepting that agricultural income was misreported due to a clerical error and demonetization cash was properly explained.
ITAT partly upheld addition of Rs.27.5 lakh as unexplained cash under sections 69A and 115BBE, granting limited relief of Rs.7.5 lakh for partial savings.
The ITAT confirmed an addition of Rs. 28 lakh under Section 69A, ruling that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits made over four years. Burden of proof lies on the taxpayer to explain deposits.
ITAT restricted unexplained cash addition from Rs.78 lakhs to Rs.7 lakhs, granting relief on demonetization deposits while maintaining that it is not a precedent-setting decision.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments under section 153C are invalid if the AO of the searched person fails to record a mandatory satisfaction note, emphasizing jurisdictional compliance.
The Tribunal held that the timing of loan disbursals and demonetization supported the assessee’s explanation. Key takeaway: partial relief granted by accepting most of the deposit as explained.
The Tribunal found that hearing notices were sent to the wrong email address, resulting in an ex-parte order. The matter was remanded to the AO after directing the assessee to deposit ₹5,000 as costs.
