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 Delhi: Cash deposits in a dissolved firms bank account are taxable only in the proprietors hands, not the partnerships. The protective addition was deleted.
Mumbai ITAT rules cash withdrawn before demonetization is not unexplained, deleting a ₹23 lakh addition. The tribunal partly upheld the disallowance of agricultural income.
ITAT Delhi: Addition on expensive watches deleted. The court held they belonged to the entire Kochar family, and possession was consistent with their status.
Assessee had recorded the cash deposits as sales in the audited books of account, and no discrepancies were found by AO or CIT(A). Failure to provide PAN alone could not be the sole reason to treat the sales as unexplained money, particularly when Aadhaar details were submitted.
Chhattisgarh High Court rules cash-in-hand from a preceding year’s balance sheet cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A in a subsequent year.
Additions made under section 69A against assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2011-12 to 2018-19 was deleted as proceedings initiated on the basis of seized documents which did not mention assessee’s name were unsustainable.
The ITAT Lucknow has ruled that a CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, emphasizing the need for a speaking order on merits under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Pune upholds the deletion of a Rs.1.06 crore addition to a co-operative society’s income, ruling that the cash deposits were explained by daily member savings.
ITAT rules in favor of Mariamma Kurian, deleting a Rs.30 lakh tax addition. The court traced the cash deposit to the sale of agricultural land.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes a tax addition on Pushpakant Punjalal Chokshi, ruling that cash deposits in an HUF account can’t be taxed in an individual’s hands.
