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...
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were explained as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and household savings, and deleted the addition of ₹10,46,500 made under section 69A.
The Delhi ITAT has ruled that while unexplained demonetization cash deposits are taxable, the 60% rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18.
ITAT Bangalore sets aside tax demand of ₹7.29 crore on a rural co-op society, citing its inability to explain a ₹4.63 crore cash deposit due to a negligent tax practitioner.
Delhi ITAT rules in favor of a retired railway employee, deleting a Rs15.35 lakh addition under section 69A. The court found the cash deposits were explained by prior withdrawals.
Mere involvement in a flagged scrip, in absence of concrete evidence of manipulation or unaccounted funds, could not justify taxing bonafide transactions. Therefore, the additions under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable.
Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)’s view that alleged accommodation loans were not supported by bank statements. Reopening and addition u/s 69A struck down; Revenue’s case dismissed.
The ITAT ruled that an employee cannot be taxed on cash deposits that are found to be the employer’s funds, remanding the case for verification of the end-use of the money.
In a case against an 82-year-old retired LIC officer, the ITAT Bangalore deletes a ₹15.30 lakh addition, accepting past cash withdrawals as a valid source for demonetisation deposits.
ITAT Bangalore rules that unexplained cash deposits in a bank account cannot be taxed without verifying sources like agricultural income and small business sales, remanding the case for re-examination.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of a ₹39.83 crore addition to Santosh Trust, ruling that its cash deposits during demonetization were explained by regular fee collections
