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 most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
ITAT held that post-29.03.2022, notices must be issued faceless; issuance by JAO violated law, invalidating the reopening and assessment.
ITAT Mumbai condoned 75-day delay in filing appeal, recognizing assessee’s illiteracy and reliance on tax consultant, allowing fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the ex-parte CIT(A) order where notices were sent to a wrong email ID, causing non-receipt by the assessee. The matter, including Sec.69A addition and denial of cross-examination, was remitted to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Explains the centralization of digital platforms, surveillance powers, and opaque governance. Key takeaway: citizens have limited oversight over critical digital systems.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte confirmation of a cash-deposit addition and directed fresh examination after the assessee produced sale-related documents. The key takeaway is that additions under section 69 require proper verification of evidence.
The Tribunal held that deposits in the assessee’s bank account represented genuine receivables from a previously acknowledged liquor business. Since the source was documented and undisputed, the Sec.69A addition of Rs.12.21 lakhs was deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits were fully recorded in audited accounts, making section 69A inapplicable. The addition was removed as no unexplained money was found.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be approved since explanation of assessee is rejected without verification and also Standard Operation Procedures [SOP] provided in CBDT instruction No. 3/2017 dated 21/02/2017 also not followed. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69A/69B relying solely upon unverified excel sheet, loose sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted.
