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 Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s exercise of newly amended powers under Section 251(1)(a) to set aside an ex-parte order passed under Section 144. Since the assessee was denied due opportunity, the matter was remanded for reassessment. The ruling clarifies that appellate authorities can now direct fresh assessments where procedural fairness was lacking.
ITAT Mumbai fully deleted Rs.7.23 crore in additions made under Sections 69A, 69B, and 69C following a search. The Tribunal ruled that the black diary entries, initially treated as unexplained expenditure, money, and investment, were actually reconciled with the audited ledgers of the LLP, rendering the AO inference as mere conjecture.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment orders issued outside the Faceless Scheme and without a valid DIN were void ab initio, striking down additions under Sections 69A/69B.
The ITAT Rajkot deleted a ₹61 lakh addition made under Section 69A, ruling the funds belonged to clients of the assessee who acted as a sub-share broker. The Tribunal held that Section 69A is inapplicable as the assessee was not the owner of the money, which was meant for derivative transactions.
Mumbai ITAT deleted a ₹4.20 lakh addition, quashing the reassessment because the addition was based solely on uncorroborated, retracted search statements and “dumb documents.” The tribunal ruled that once retracted, statements lose evidentiary value without independent verification.
ITAT Agra granted partial relief on a cash deposit addition, accepting ₹60,000 as explained, ruling that money received back from previous advances through banking channels constitutes the assessee’s own money returned.
The ITAT Delhi deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited, ruling that the penalty cannot survive once the original quantum assessment (which determined the high turnover) is set aside. Since the AO later accepted the returned income, the statutory basis for the penalty lapsed.
Chennai ITAT remanded an ex parte assessment back to the CIT(A) after the assessee filed an affidavit promising full cooperation and no adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT Mumbai condoned a 388-day delay and remanded the case of Dahisar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat to the Assessing Officer to verify ₹29.46 lakh in cash deposits claimed to be received from members during demonetisation, directing a fresh assessment after fair hearing.
The Tribunal sustained the addition due to the AO’s rejection of the books under s.145, which was warranted by the assessee’s non-submission of separate purchase/sale and MRP details for country liquor and IMFL. The ITAT found the 10 estimated GP rate reasonable, falling within the normal range for the liquor trade, and confirmed the addition.
