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 Pune has sent back a Rs. 28.71 lakh unexplained cash deposit case to the CIT(A), granting the assessee a fresh opportunity due to alleged unawareness of proceedings.
ITAT Kolkata has allowed a Sikkimese proprietor to claim a tax exemption u/s 10(26AAA) despite using a wrong PAN. The tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai has granted S.S.S. Export another chance to substantiate cash deposits under Section 69A, remanding the appeal to the CIT(A).
Addition of cash withdrawal under Section 69C in relation to the legitimate gold loan intermediary business was not justified observing that the documentary evidence including gold loan recorded validated gold loan business, thus there was no unexplained nature in the withdrawal.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs. 26.49 lakh addition, ruling that foreign remittances into an NRE account were a valid source for a property purchase.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a ₹16.69 lakh addition, ruling that Section 69A cannot be invoked mechanically when the assessee provides evidence of business receipts.
ITAT Bangalore held that cash gifts received from relatives and friends during wedding cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act merely because each donor is not individually verified. Accordingly, addition directed to be deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted an addition made under sections 69A and 69C, ruling that an addition based solely on loose papers and a third-party statement without corroboration is not valid.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were properly explained and recorded, therefore, addition made under section 69A of ₹17,16,000 and taxed under section 115BBE was not sustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere titular ownership of bank account is not conclusive. Thus, addition u/s. 69A of the Income tax Act towards unexplained cash deposit cannot be sustained without proper inquiry into identity of actual beneficiary of cash deposits.
