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 Surat permits Asifiqbal Ismail Jangda’s appeal, removing a ₹3.45 lakh unexplained cash addition. Agricultural income and bank withdrawal proof cited.
ITAT Ahmedabad restores ₹15.88 lakh reassessment addition, directs AO to re-verify cash deposits after considering evidence overlooked by lower authorities.
Delhi High Court held that since AY 2012-13 falls beyond the block of ten years that are required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022-23 assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C in respect of AY 2012-13 is invalid. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that claim of assessee that income declared under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana [PMGKY] and hence the same should not be treated as unexplained deposits needs verification. Hence, matter remitted to AO to verify the same.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act not sustained since three key ingredients i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of parties being proved. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Delhi remits ex-parte order against Sohanvir Singh to AO, citing denial of adequate opportunity of being heard, upholding natural justice.
Ahmedabad ITAT rules cash deposits by Amul parlour owner explained by sales, deletes ₹27 lakh addition under Section 69A.
ITAT Hyderabad sets aside CIT(A) order, granting Aryavysya Seva Sangham another opportunity to present evidence on unexplained cash deposits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 69A towards unexplained money [on-money transaction] simply on the basis of presumptions without any concrete evidence is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69A deleted as it lacks a valid basis.
ITAT Pune held that application of cash received from unrecorded cash sales needs verification since assessee claims that it is applied for giving advance to the farmers for purchase of raw material and also for expansion of the existing showroom.
