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 Pune held that once primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment fails then AO doesn’t possess jurisdiction to tax any other income in reassessment order. Hence, re-assessment is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside in as much as the source of cash deposits duly explained. Accordingly, appeal restored to AO with direction to re-adjudicate the issue.
ITAT Bangalore remands case concerning cash deposits during demonetization, directing the AO to re-assess the addition u/s 69A after considering CBDT circulars and granting the assessee a fair hearing.
ITAT Ahmedabad condones a 340-day delay in an appeal on unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A and remands the case for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Raipur held that order of transfer of case under section 127 of the Income Tax Act without granting opportunity of being heard to appellant is bad-in-law. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of CIT(A).
In the matter abovementioned ITAT allowed appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose by way of remand after considering that assessee was unable to submit details before CIT (A) due to unfortunate accident of CA.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 68 or 69A of the Income Tax Act for cash deposit during demonetization period unjustified since source of cash deposits duly explained. Hence, addition liable to be deleted.
Telangana HC upholds tax addition under Section 69A, ruling that the assessee’s land was not under cultivation, rejecting agricultural income exemption claim.
ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside CIT(A)’s dismissal of appeal due to non-appearance, directing fresh consideration with a proper hearing for the taxpayer.
ITAT Bangalore remits the case of Gold Palace Jewellers back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration, citing a 4-year delay and lack of proper hearing opportunities.
