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 addition of Rs.0.58 Crores as made for cash deposit in the account of IJF with respect to Maheshwari Brothers Coal also stand deleted on same logic. The corresponding grounds of appeal stand allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposits as unexplained money cannot be sustained since the cash deposits is already recorded in books of accounts. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Once assessee had filed the Return of Income, in response to notice, u/s 142(1), (although it was late), then it was mandatory for AO, in order to acquire the jurisdiction, to make the assessment on the assessee, to issue the notice u/s 143(2).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provisions of section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act gets applicable as source of undisclosed income admitted during the course of survey not explained. Merely disclosing and paying tax doesn’t protect assessee from clutches of section 69A.
ITAT Ahmedabad reviews Sankalp Recreation’s tax appeals concerning unaccounted income, expenses, book rejection, and PF/ESIC disallowances following a search operation.
There is no cavil that an addition can made on the basis of documents, which are found during the course of Search and Seizure operations if on appreciation, it is found that the said documents have a bearing on the income of the Assessee.
ITAT Mumbai rules cash deposits in SBNs during demonetization, with explained sources, cannot be treated as unexplained income, citing judicial precedents.
ITAT Amritsar held that addition on protective basis in the hands of assessee not justified as bank account is fraudulently opened in his name without the assessee’s knowledge. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and addition directed to be deleted.
Ahmedabad ITAT rules in favor of Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker, deleting cash addition, stating previous bank withdrawals can be source of later deposits if not utilized elsewhere.
Delhi ITAT deletes Section 69A cash additions against senior citizens Nand Kumar Taneja and Nita Taneja, citing disclosed income and recorded cash-in-hand.
