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 Raipur held that passing of order by CIT(A) without considering adjournment request of the assessee is not justifiable in law. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards cash deposited during demonization period partly set aside based on CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017. Accordingly, appeal of assessee partly allowed.
ITAT Bangalore allows appeal, deleting addition for demonetization cash deposit, accepting claim of mother’s savings as source. (159 Characters)
ITAT Ahmedabad restores assessment, citing denial of fair opportunity and inadequate evidence review by AO in Sections 69A/69C case. (159 Characters)
ITAT Chennai held that cash sales of liquor is the source of cash deposit during demonetization and accordingly, since the nature and source of investment fully explained by the assessee, addition u/s. 69 of 69A not justifiable.
Patna High Court held that Faceless Assessment Procedure as prescribed under section 144B of the Income Tax Act is duly followed and in course of faceless assessment at every stage approval from competent authorities have been obtained.
There are absolutely no credible and reliable evidences to establish that entire loans in cash were from the undisclosed funds whereas loan in cheques were accepted to be that of person other assessee and his role as a conduit or a mere intermediary was established.
ITAT Mumbai removes additions under Section 69A on alleged loan in Mangeram Sharma case due to lack of evidence and retracted statement.
Explore the complex interplay of tradition and tax law surrounding Streedhan (women’s jewellery) in India, CBDT guidelines, and court rulings.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition made on the basis of dumb documents, loose paper containing scribbling, rough/vague noting’s in the absence of any corroborative material is not tenable in law. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
