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...
ITAT Hyderabad deletes ₹33 lakh addition under Section 115BBE, ruling that cash seized and declared as business income should be taxed at normal rates, not as unexplained income.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposit during demonetization not justified since assessee has sufficiently explained that the said deposit is from earlier withdrawal. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Notice issued by a non-jurisdictional AO was invalid rendering the addition under Section 69A void ab initio. It directly impacted the validity of the assessment under Section 69A, leading to the complete annulment of the additions.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that cash deposits made during demonetisation cannot be singled out and must be treated as business income, allowing an assessee’s appeal and deleting a Rs.26.57 lakh addition.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has set aside a CIT(A) order that deleted a Rs. 99.5 lakh cash deposit addition, citing a procedural error for not obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Pune held that ex-parte order sustaining addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act on account of non-compliance on the part of the assessee not justified since relevant notice and order were served to old e-mail of the assessee. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of AO.
Additions made on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period and disallowance of loss on the derivative transactions, were remanded for fresh adjudication after the verification of sales records and transaction nature.
An ITAT Delhi ruling has partially allowed appeals by the tax department, reducing significant cash deposit additions and clarifying the applicability of Section 115BBE.
ITAT Bangalore condones a 224-day delay in an unexplained cash deposit case, remitting it to the AO for a fresh assessment with a token penalty.
ITAT Bangalore deletes an unexplained cash addition, ruling that cash deposits during demonetization are not taxable if they are supported by prior bank withdrawals.
