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 Ahmedabad remands Ratansinh Solanki’s case, setting aside Section 69A additions. Fresh adjudication ordered, allowing admission of additional evidence for cash deposits.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of statement which was subsequently retracted is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposited during demonetization cannot be sustained as source of cash deposited is cash sales and the same is already offered to tax. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and addition is deleted.
ITAT Jaipur held that seized cash belongs to the firm and not of the assessee alone and hence invoking provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act in the hands of assessee misconceived. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Surat rules cash in real estate business isn’t automatically unexplained for demonetization deposits. Reduces ₹7.54L addition, cites Supreme Court on cash balances.
ITAT Mumbai quashes ₹5.39 crore income addition by AO, stating calculations based on two days’ bills were illogical for tax proceedings. Sales were already recorded by a successor firm.
ITAT Kolkata sets aside ex-parte CIT(A) order on unexplained demonetization cash deposit against Akanksha Enterprises, allowing a fresh hearing based on natural justice.
The ITAT Delhi has directed the NFAC to apply the peak credit theory and allow set-off against agricultural income for unexplained cash deposits in the reassessment of Shakti Singh.
ITAT Delhi rules no books or vouchers are needed for Section 44AD income, deleting a Rs. 20.58 lakh cash deposit addition, citing a binding precedent.
ITAT Mumbai ruled against reopening assessments for penny stock LTCG without independent proof of accommodation entries, emphasizing genuine investor transactions.
