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 Deletes ₹19.04 Lakh Addition: Agent’s Cash Deposits Were Company Collections The ITAT ruled that cash deposits of ₹19.04 lakh made by commission agent Shyam Singh Hetta were reconciled collections for his principal, DTM Pvt. Ltd., and deleted the unexplained money addition under Section 69A.
Pune ITAT dismissed a firm’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s order to tax Rs 19.44 lakh in unexplained cash and stock found in a survey under the stringent Section 115BBE.
The ITAT deleted the addition for cash deposits made during demonetization, concluding that taxing the same business receipts twice by first accepting sales and then applying Section 69A was unsustainable under the law.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that once sales have been recorded and taxed, they cannot again be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, deleting addition made on alleged accommodation entries.
ITAT Chennai remanded a Section 69A unexplained cash deposit addition back to the AO. The assessee is permitted to submit new evidence, including bank statements, for fresh consideration of the claim.
ITAT Pune annulled reassessment proceedings, holding that approval by PCIT instead of PCCIT for notices issued after three years was contrary to Section 151.
ITAT Agra held that ₹8.84 crore deposited and withdrawn from bank accounts used for ATM cash replenishment could not be treated as unexplained money of the employee. The Tribunal confirmed that the amounts belonged to Punjab & Sind Bank.
ITAT ruled that cash deposits made during demonetisation were justified by proceeds from sale of agricultural land. Tribunal upheld deletion of the ₹1.28 crore addition under Section 69A, confirming that registered sale deeds and evidence of cash flow adequately established the source of the funds.
ITAT Jaipur quashed an addition of Rs.14.47 lakh made under Section 69A because the assessment was framed by a Jaipur-based AO who lacked territorial jurisdiction over the assessee residing in Sri Ganganagar. The Tribunal ruled that the objection to jurisdiction, raised by the assessee and unrebutted by the Revenue, renders the entire assessment order void ab initio.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that excess stock admitted during a survey is taxed as business income only if a direct nexus to regular business is proven; otherwise, it’s taxed as undisclosed income under Section 115BBE. The verdict split across two assessment years based on whether the disclosure was linked to sales or simply admitted as unexplained.
