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 ruled that the crore addition, made solely because the assessee’s petrol pump was allegedly unauthorized to accept SBNs, was incorrect. Since the cash deposits were sourced from historical, recorded cash sales accepted by the AO, taxing the deposits again would constitute impermissible double taxation.
The ruling establishes that the AO cannot selectively accept total sales and profit figures while disbelieving a corresponding cash deposit from those sales without rejecting the books or providing concrete proof of bogus entries. Treating the recorded cash deposits as unexplained income is illegal double taxation.
he ITAT restricted a S.69A addition on ₹1 crore cash deposits, ruling that treating the entire gross receipt as unexplained income was unjustified for a commission agent. Considering the low-margin onion trading business and past assessments, the Tribunal estimated 4% of the deposits as the correct taxable commission income.
The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling the CIT(A)’s rejection of agricultural income based solely on bank deposits not tallying bill-to-bill was arbitrary and illogical. Once the genuine agricultural activity was accepted, timing differences or cash accumulation must be considered.
Since voluntarily filed returns could not be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963) and additional evidence was inadmissible and that the seized cash was rightly treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, taxable under Section 115BBE.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money found during the course of search is liable to be deleted since assessee has discharged his onus to prove that the cash found is completely verifiable from the audited books of accounts.
ITAT Hyderabad upholds remand for ex-parte reassessment, allowing the assessee to challenge the Section 148 notice validity based on the mandatory faceless procedure violation in fresh proceedings.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled that protective additions made in reassessment proceedings are invalid because they did not co-exist with a substantive addition for the same assessment year. The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot stand in isolation and cannot be based on mere suspicion to keep a hypothetical option open for the Revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond time limit of six year is barred by limitation and hence liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal allowed and notice quashed.
Judicial ruling confirms that investment source for property purchased by a homemaker was genuine. The ITAT found that the entire consideration had a clear trail from the son’s account, reversing the mechanical addition made by lower authorities.
