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 set aside a Section 69A addition for unexplained cash payments, ruling that the AO must first verify the facts. The case was remanded because the assessee claimed an original allottee made the payment but failed to provide the plot’s transfer agreement as proof.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside an order that attempted to rectify an assessment to tax a survey disclosure under Section 69A/115BBE instead of normal business income. The Tribunal ruled that the question of classifying the already accounted income as business receipts versus unexplained money is a debatable issue that falls outside the limited scope of rectification under Section 154.
The ITAT Agra set aside the NFAC’s order confirming a Rs. 22,01,000/− cash deposit addition, citing the NFAC’s failure to follow earlier verification directions and admitting new legal grounds under the NTPC principle.
The ITAT Raipur condoned a 93-day delay citing the medical student’s hectic schedule and remanded the Rs. 11,82,000/− unexplained cash deposit addition under Section 69A to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing.
In the case of Shobha Welfare Society Vs ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, partly allowed an appeal, challenging a Rs. 64,98,470 addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Tribunal confirms that notices under section 148 post-March 2022 must be issued by Faceless Assessing Officers, rendering JAO-issued notices void.
Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period and without sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner was invalid, following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer post Faceless Assessment instead of National Faceless Assessment Centre is void and invalid. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order in Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT(OSD), restoring the addition dispute of ₹10,00,100 under Section 69A for fresh review.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allows appeal in Somnath Bandopadhaya v. ITO, deleting ₹2.27 crore addition under Section 69A after verifying explained bank deposits.
