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 Chennai held that provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked when cash is sourced out of recorded sales. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition u/s. 69A is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Raipur held that adding entire bank receipts without inquiries from parties is unjustified. Case remanded for further examination under natural justice principles.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes addition of ₹6.16 lakh under Section 69A for unexplained jewellery, considering joint ownership of locker and affidavit from the daughter.
ITAT Lucknow held that cash deposits out of the past savings during demonetization being reasonable and as per social standing of the assessee is justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition is directed to be deleted.
Learn how the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act due to the AO’s misapplication of law in taxing Stamp Duty Valuation and Unexplained Investment. Explore detailed analysis of Section 56(2)(x), Section 69, and key judicial precedents.
ITAT Ahmedabad upholds ₹4.64 crore addition under Section 69A due to unexplained bank transactions and lack of cooperation from the assessee in tax proceedings.
ITAT Pune rules that taxpayers must disclose cash-in-hand, bank balances, and receivables, even under the Presumptive Taxation Scheme, for accurate tax assessment.
Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 69A towards cash deposits during demonetization deleted since cash deposit was made out of earlier withdrawals. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that when the cash is sourced out of recorded sales, the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked since sales have already been offered to tax and taxing same again u/s. 69A would amount to double taxation.
