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 Jaipur held that gain not realized during the year under consideration cannot be taxed under the head capital gain or as income under the head profit and gains of business or profession by valuing unsold scrips at market value.
The central issue was the validity of a reassessment that led to additions for bogus purchases and unexplained cash. The ITAT confirmed the entire reassessment was void because the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under S 143(2), affirming the deletion of all additions.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of third party statement substantiated with tangible material is justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) with liberty to assessee to place supporting documents explaining source of cash deposits.
ITAT quashes an income tax addition for cash deposits, ruling that a detailed documentary trail explaining the source for visa purposes cannot be dismissed solely by a third party’s denial.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a ₹5.10 crore addition made under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetisation, holding that once sales are recorded, audited, and taxed, further additions based on suspicion or third-party denials are unjustified.
In a search assessment dispute, the ITAT Delhi struck down an addition of cash payments, concluding that the diary entries used as evidence were rough, unsigned jottings with no established link to the taxpayer’s finances beyond speculation. The entire addition was deleted as the diary lacked legal evidentiary value.
The ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an income tax addition made under Section 69A based on seized on-money documents lacking direct evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the entire cash component couldn’t be treated as undisclosed income, instead taxing only 8% of the disputed amount as a profit element at normal rates.
The ITAT Pune ruled that a reassessment initiated under sec.147/148, even for non-filers who later filed a return, is void ab initio if the mandatory 143(2) notice is not issued. The Tribunal set aside the cash deposit addition and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, reinforcing that 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court’s V.C. Shukla principle, reaffirming that loose papers seized from third parties are without evidentiary value unless properly linked to the assessee through verified facts. ITAT, therefore, quashed both the 69A addition and the underlying 147 reopening as being based on mere surmises and conjectures.
This ruling underscores the requirement for independent verification of uncorroborated search material, deleting additions made for unexplained cash under Section 69A and Capital Gains based on an employee’s diary. ITAT’s decision confirms that mere suspicion or rough personal notings, full of inconsistencies, cannot be the foundation for substantial tax demands.
