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 ruled that ₹10 lakh deposit in demonetisation period, backed by gifts, savings, and sale of gold, cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69A.
The appellate authority held that additions cannot be sustained solely on external information without independent verification. Bogus purchase claims under Section 69A were deleted.
The appellate authority held that unexplained cash additions under Section 69A require evidence, not mere suspicion. Cash from property sale deposited after ten months was justified and deletion allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transaction duly proved. Accordingly, CIT(A) order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal reduced unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs.11.59 lakh to Rs.2.59 lakh, noting both the taxpayer and the department failed to fully substantiate their claims during the demonetization scrutiny.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment in property under Section 69A. The tribunal noted that being an NRI, the assessee could not access required documents in time, warranting reconsideration by the AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad remitted the case back to the AO after CIT(A) upheld an addition of ₹2.47 crore as unexplained share capital. The assessee had provided detailed bank records, personal books, and PAN/ITR proofs which were ignored, violating principles of natural justice.
The ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material found during search and set aside assessments for AYs 2013–14 and 2014–15.
ITAT Chandigarh restricted the unexplained cash addition to ₹2.5 lakh, deleting ₹10 lakh in Sher Singh vs ITO for AY 2017–18, citing partial explanation from agricultural and milk income.
ITAT held that no addition under Section 69A was justified when the jewellery found during search was less than the amount already declared in wealth tax returns. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
