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 Delhi High Court upholds the ITAT’s decision to delete a Rs. 5.17 crore addition to Anoop Jain’s income, finding no evidence he owned the funds under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Lucknow bench deleted an addition made under Section 69A, ruling that a cash deposit from the assessee’s wife’s withdrawals was a sufficiently explained source.
The ITAT ruled that unaccounted receipts from known business debtors can’t be taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A, granting relief to an assessee.
ITAT Mumbai deletes a ₹1.69 crore addition under Section 69A against Parth Ajit Pawar. The ruling emphasizes that a third-party statement without cross-examination and corroborating evidence is not valid for making additions.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposited during demonetization period deleted to the extent of cash sales which is accepted. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Delhi rules DVO reference before Sec 148 notice invalid; deletes Rs 2.28 Cr addition in Aerens Group case due to lack of pending assessment.
Chandigarh ITAT remands DTC Trading Co. tax appeal for fresh hearing, citing advocate’s depression and memory loss as sufficient cause for ex-parte order.
Assessee claimed that cash sales were recorded and backed by VAT invoices, and that AO had misread e cash balance figures. Audited financials, VAT returns, and confirmations were placed on record, which AO had not examined.
ITAT Ahmedabad confirms CIT(A)’s decision, ruling Section 69A inapplicable as high-value bank transactions were explained and recorded.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delay of 477 days in filing of an appeal on the reason that there was gross negligence on the part of the accountant is not condonable since negligence of accountant not sufficient shown for cause.
