Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : A doctrinal analysis of unexplained cash credits, investments, and expenditure under Sections 68–69D. Explains burden of proof a...
Income Tax : This covers how unexplained credits and investments are taxed under Sections 68 to 69D. The key takeaway is that additions require...
Income Tax : ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making t...
Income Tax : Explains the centralization of digital platforms, surveillance powers, and opaque governance. Key takeaway: citizens have limited ...
Income Tax : ITAT confirmed validity of reassessment based on cash deposit information. However, it reduced addition by applying peak credit th...
Income Tax : The case examined whether documents found during search can be automatically attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that o...
Income Tax : The issue was whether Section 153C could apply when the assessees own premises were searched. The tribunal held that such a person...
Income Tax : The issue was whether disclosed investments could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that Section 69 cannot be invoked w...
Income Tax : The case involved unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal upheld addition for unexplained shortage but delet...
ITAT confirmed validity of reassessment based on cash deposit information. However, it reduced addition by applying peak credit theory due to withdrawal patterns
The case examined whether documents found during search can be automatically attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that ownership and connection must be established through evidence. The decision underscores limits of statutory presumptions under Section 292C.
The issue was whether Section 153C could apply when the assessees own premises were searched. The tribunal held that such a person is a searched person, making Section 153A applicable instead. Consequently, assessments under Section 153C were quashed for multiple years.
Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liability on taxpayers to justify the nature and source of funds.
The issue was whether disclosed investments could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that Section 69 cannot be invoked when investments are recorded and taxed, upholding deletion of additions.
The case involved unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal upheld addition for unexplained shortage but deleted addition where advances were supported by evidence.
The issue involved addition under Section 69A for demonetization cash deposits. The Tribunal held that once sale consideration was accepted as source, the addition could not be sustained.
The tribunal ruled that unverified claims of cash payments based on third-party material cannot justify tax additions. It emphasized that evidence must directly implicate the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence of such notice renders the entire assessment void.
The Tribunal examined whether demonetisation cash deposits linked to recorded business sales could be taxed as unexplained income. It ruled that once the source is established through books, addition under Section 68 is unsustainable.
