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 set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing the AO an opportunity under Rule 46A(3) to examine the new evidence submitted by the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable as assessment made by AO after proper verification of evidences. Further, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Bengaluru partly allows assessee’s appeals for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13, deleting addition under section 69A for recorded loan repayments.
ITAT concluded that merely a time gap between withdrawal and deposit does not warrant an addition under Section 69, especially when the revenue could not establish any other use of the withdrawn funds.
ITAT Jodhpur partly allows appeal in Kishana Ram vs ITO, upholding additions related to capital discrepancies and agricultural income under Section 143(3).
ITAT Jaipur sets aside addition and penalty against Mukesh Kumar Agarwal due to lack of valid jurisdiction and time-barred penalty order.
ITAT Chennai confirms addition of ₹16.20 lakh under Section 69A for demonetized cash deposited by trader; notice deemed valid and appeal dismissed.
ITAT Pune grants partial relief in cash deposit case during demonetization under Section 69A. Dispute centered on unexplained deposits of ₹21.4 lakh.
Surat ITAT partly allows Jayeshbhai Chovatiya’s appeal against unexplained bank credits addition and upholds part of AO’s assessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad quashes ₹4 crore addition against Amitsingh Bhadoriya as AO relied on a bank account not admitted by the taxpayer.
