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 Visakhapatnam has partly allowed the appeal of Vallabhai Patel Kottapalli, an agriculturist, by restricting the tax rate on an unexplained cash deposit to 30% in-stead of 60%.
The ITAT quashed a reassessment and deleted ₹13 crore in additions, ruling that the initial notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was time-barred.
The ITAT Vizag partly allowed a nursery operator’s appeal, accepting a government-certified income of ₹1 lakh per acre over the AO’s arbitrary estimate. The ruling confirms that nursery income differs from regular agricultural income.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted a ₹11.35 crore addition, holding that a retracted survey statement and “dumb documents” are insufficient to prove undisclosed income under Section 69A.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposits not reflected in bank account details cannot be sustained since the income doesn’t belong to assessee in the individual status but the income belong to HUF of the assessee.
TAT Kolkata reverses Rs.1.33 crore tax addition on Sati Saw Mill’s cash deposits, holding that the money was accounted business receipts.
ITAT Bangalore rules against taxing SBNs as unexplained cash when deposits are linked to legitimate business sales, preventing double taxation.
The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled in favor of Suraj Somaru Varma, a Business Correspondent agent, deleting an addition of ₹9.16 lakh made under Section 69A. The Tribunal held that the demonetized currency deposits were not unexplained income but part of normal business operations, as Varma was authorized by RBI and maintained proper records.
Disallowance of ₹28,99,56,987/- towards finance costs on securitization transactions had no basis, as the interest income rightly belonged to the SPVs and not the assessee. Likewise, the addition of ₹1,61,82,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE was unjustified since the cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes represented genuine loan repayments from microfinance borrowers and could not be treated as unexplained.
ITAT Delhi held that applicability of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act without initially fixing the addition under any of the charging provisions i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
