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 exemption under section 11 and section 12 of the Income Tax Act not admissible to assessee society due to non-furnishing of return of income as required u/s. 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
When an assessee deposes on oath giving explanation of the reasons and circumstances for investment, the same could not be brushed aside on the basis of general principles of the modus operandi of bogus LTCG claims.
Assessee didnot file ITR for AY 2012-13 during which assessee made cash deposit of Rs.45,69,722/-. The case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was sent through e-mail against which no ITR was filed. Hence, AO made addition u/s 69A.
Summary of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Anantrai Vithalbhai Parmar vs. CIT (Appeals) for AY 2017-18. Case remanded for reassessment, emphasizing natural justice.
ITAT Patna’s decision in Dharmendra Kumar vs. ITO regarding ₹1.10 crore treated as unexplained income. Appeal dismissed due to non-compliance.
Before ITAT it was submitted by assessee that both the lower authorities have erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte. Revenue also admitted that orders of lower authorities were ex-parte.
TAT Mumbai held that the addition of Rs. 3.05 crore u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act was based on suspicion, ruling it as impermissible without proper inquiry.
The Sections by which the assessees are suffering too much due to high pitched assessments passed by NFAC are from 68 to 69D and 115 BBE. Many orders are struck down by the High Courts through writs and majority of the orders are appealed against and are cancelled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The brief contents of the relevant sections are given below:
ITAT Chennai held that cash collected from customers for purchase of stamp papers were deposited in bank hence source of cash deposits duly explained. Thus, addition towards unexplained cash deposits u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Kolkata deletes ₹8.27 lakh addition under Section 69A, ruling cash deposits belonged to Seva Kendra, not the assessee. Penalty also set aside.
