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 Chandigarh dismissed the appeal of Svetlana Gorodinskaia, ruling that unexplained cash of ₹4,07,000/- found during a survey operation must be taxed as “unexplained money” under Section 69A and subjected to the higher tax rates of Section 115BBE
The ITAT Jaipur dismissed the assessee’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263. The Tribunal ruled that the income declared as excess stock during a survey must be taxed under Section 115BBE at a higher rate because the assessee failed to prove a direct nexus between the excess stock and suppressed regular business profits.
ITAT Delhi reduced a Rs.11.47 lakh demonetization cash addition to Rs.47,000/− for a senior citizen. Cites Madras HC ruling limiting S. 115BBE rate to transactions after 01.04.2017.
Delhi ITAT deleted a ₹30.65 lakh cash deposit addition made under Section 69A during demonetization. The source was proven to be a gift from the deceased grandmother’s savings of previously taxed rental income, preventing double taxation.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)’s ruling, deleting unexplained money and commission additions made against Riddhesh Girishbhai Bhandari following a search.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reasoning given by CIT(A) for deletion of addition made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act by Assessing Officer towards cash payment is contrary to material on record and cannot be accepted.
ITAT Kolkata remands the Rs.77 lakh Section 69A cash addition against Kulut Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. back to the CIT(A). New evidence on cash source and Section 80P claim to be examined; Rule 46A procedure is mandatory.
ITAT Visakhapatnam upholds additions for demonetisation deposits but rules tax under section 115BBE for AY 2017-18 should apply at 30% instead of 60%.
ITAT Hyderabad held that alleged discrepancy i.e, the suppression of the purchases/sales/closing stock based on distorted figures by AO resulting to an exorbitant addition is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that the addition, based on uncorroborated loose papers and rough jottings, was invalid. The decision followed a similar ruling in a co-partner’s case, establishing that such evidence without independent verification cannot be the sole basis for taxation.
