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 Kolkata remands case of Prakash Bhalotia to AO for fresh order, citing lack of opportunity to present evidence in AY 2017–18 case of unexplained cash deposits.
Assessment was completed at income of Rs.1,23,18,612/- against the returned income of Rs.3,76,740/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank accounts amounting to Rs.1,19,41,872/-.
ITAT Jaipur held that when the cash found in books are more then physically found no further addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained cash set aside.
ITAT Agra held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by CIT(A), without adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits, is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6).
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld ₹70.95 lakh addition under Section 69A due to unexplained cash deposits during demonetization and non-compliance by the assessee.
ITAT Allahabad remands a case involving ₹33.29 lakh unexplained cash deposits back to AO due to a mix-up of assessment years by CIT(A).
ITAT Ahmedabad directs benefit of Rs. 8 lakhs for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization in the case of Manan Kiritbhai Shah for AY 2017-18.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash deposits rightly deleted since it is already part of the turnover of the business. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that orders passed based on illegal assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of satisfaction note which was recorded without application of mind and quite in a mechanical manner is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, addition deleted.
Assessee didnot file return for the year under consideration. As per AIMS module information received that assessee has deposited the amount of Rs.16,84,100/- as cash during the demonetization period. Case was reopened notice was issued accordingly.
