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...
Learn why the ITAT quashed the deemed dividend addition. The Tribunal found the payment was a salary adjustment, not a loan, and the AO failed to disprove the source of the cash credit.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a cryptic CIT(A) order and remanded the entire case to the AO, directing a de novo inquiry into unexplained fixed deposits, cash, and flat investment after admitting new bank certificates and considering natural justice principles.
Tribunal ruled that AO cannot treat cash recorded in audited books as unexplained merely because deposits were made during demonetisation or in instalments. Additions u/s 69A were deleted as cash balance was duly supported by business records.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), allowed the appeal of P. Maneklal & Co., deleting the addition of Rs. 4,78,500 under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made for unexplained gold stock found during a survey.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses Income Tax Dept’s appeal, ruling that only the 0.7% margin earned on E-top-up sales routed to Vodafone is taxable income under Section 69A.
Club income not taxable if mutuality is proven: ITAT directs re-verification of cash deposits and identity of contributors/beneficiaries, setting aside an assessment based on the estimated 10% income addition.
ITAT Bangalore deleted a Rs.34.50 lakh addition u/s 69A, accepting the exporter’s explanation that cash deposits during demonetization were genuine customer advances for flowers, which were fully disclosed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, ruled against the revenue’s additions of unaccounted capitation fees and cash loan interest under Sections 69A and 69C against the Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust.
ITAT Rajkot deletes Rs.2.5 lakh cash addition made during demonetization, ruling that the amount was within the non-taxable limit specified by the CBDT for small deposits.
Mere act of depositing cash into a bank account, even during demonetization, was not conclusive proof of unexplained income under Section 69A especially for a business operating under a presumptive tax scheme.
