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 Jabalpur restores Nagar Panchayat’s reassessment case, directing AO to verify exemption claim under Section 10(20) for cash deposits from statutory functions.
ITAT Chandigarh held that invocation of revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since PCIT failed to establish that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 Hon’ble apex court have held that The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed.
AO observed that a perusal of the books of account (specifically cash book) of the companies, revealed that an amount of Rs.75 lacs and Rs.25 lacs respectively were given by both companies on imprest account to the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition invoking provisions of section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act without referring the valuation of the capital asset to the valuation officer is not justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO to refer the matter to valuation officer for determining Fair Market Value.
Tribunal remanded the matter after finding that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal mechanically without examining the assessee’s grounds.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization period deleted since source of cash deposit duly explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act on the basis of a third party statement without bringing any corroborative material is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, addition deleted and appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Pune dismisses Revenue’s appeal against deletion of Rs 12.82 lakh addition, citing CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals.
ITAT Pune sends Gajanan Gas Agency’s Rs 10.42 lakh cash deposit case during demonetization back to the AO for re-examination on merits.
