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...
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case of Harshang Kaushikkumar Rami vs ITO to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of Rs. 5 crore cash deposits treated as unexplained income.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld annulment of a ₹1.73 crore assessment, ruling that Section 148 notice was issued in name of a person who had died four years earlier. Tribunal affirmed that proceedings against a deceased person are a fatal jurisdictional defect and void ab initio.
The ITAT Ahmedabad reversed the CIT(A)’s deletion, upholding the addition of ₹6.73 lakh under Section 69A for bogus Long-Term Capital Gain from Safal Herbs Ltd. shares. The Tribunal ruled that the sudden investment in the obscure scrip, coupled with an unreasonable price rise, defied commercial logic and was an accommodation entry.
The issue was whether a large cash holding was unexplained money under Section 69A post-demonetization. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, accepting that the cash originated from earlier, disclosed bank withdrawals. Key Takeaway: The burden of proof to disprove the source from prior withdrawals rests with the Department; mere suspicion isn’t enough for an addition.
Tribunal held that Section 69A covers unexplained money, not loans recorded in books. As all 14 lenders confirmed transactions with evidence, ₹1.86 crore addition was deleted.
The ITAT deleted the entire addition made under Section 69A concerning demonetisation cash deposits, ruling in favor of a retired government employee. The Tribunal held that deposits from verifiable sources like gratuity, leave encashment, salary arrears, and loan repayment were genuinely explained and not unexplained income.
ITAT Chandigarh quashed an assessment order made under Section 143(3) for a pre-search year, holding that after a Section 132 search, the assessment must mandatorily proceed under Section 148 with proper Section 148B approval. The tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s continuation of the scrutiny post-search was a jurisdictional error, making the assessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly accepted excess stock and cash disclosed during survey as business income after enquiry. Section 115BBE was not applicable, and PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was invalid.
The ITAT Ahmedabad sent back a case involving an addition of Rs.1.17 crore for unexplained cash deposits to the AO. The remand was necessary because the CIT(A) issued an ex-parte order without verifying the evidence submitted by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹31.35 lakh addition for alleged inflated purchases, ruling that an assessment cannot rest solely on third-party search data. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to conduct any independent enquiry or provide corroborating evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transactions.
