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 Tribunal held that deposits received and remitted by the assessee as a Bank of India business correspondent could not be treated as unexplained money. The addition of ₹2.31 crore under Section 69A was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that reliance on third-party statements without granting effective cross-examination amounted to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the addition based on such statements could not survive.
The Tribunal ruled that statements of builder group officials, without corroborative evidence against the purchaser, cannot form the sole basis for addition. The decision reinforces the principle that third-party statements must be independently verified.
The Tribunal emphasized that once sales are entered in regular books and supported by stock records, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove them false. In the absence of such proof, Section 68 could not be invoked.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be fully treated as unexplained money when supported by sales records and books of account. However, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the abnormal increase in cash sales before demonetization, the Tribunal sustained only a lump-sum addition of ₹10 lakh. The ruling emphasizes balanced evaluation of evidence in demonetization-related assessments.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ignored the statutory threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. The ruling emphasizes that reassessment notices issued contrary to limitation provisions are void in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because approval under Section 151 was obtained from an authority not competent under the amended law. The notice under Section 148 was declared void.
Pune ITAT observed that the Revenue had accepted the assessee’s scrap business in earlier and later years by estimating profit on turnover. The ruling held that this history must be considered before treating deposits as unexplained income.
The Tribunal sent the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after the assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice. The issue relating to notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer was left open for reconsideration.
ITAT Amritsar held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the reopening was based on factually incorrect AIR information. The Tribunal ruled that failure to verify bank records before issuing notice showed non-application of mind.
