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 : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Goods and Services Tax : GST arrest power under Section 69 is limited to grave offenses (evasion > ₹2 crore, or repeat fraud), requiring reasons to belie...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
Income Tax : Cash deposits arising from routine business collections cannot be wholly treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that e...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening based only on generalized information about a scrip, without independent inquiry or linkage to th...
Income Tax : The High Court held that an addition for unexplained investment cannot rest solely on an unsigned and unexecuted agreement. The ke...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years was valid without approval from the correct authority. ITAT held the notice ...
Income Tax : The issue was whether cash and cheque payments could be taxed as unexplained investment in AY 2013–14. The Tribunal held that th...
ITAT Bangalore invalidated a reassessment where the assessee was not provided the recorded reasons, emphasizing that reopening notices must be supported by clear, communicated reasons before filing returns.
The dispute centered on whether a reassessment notice was time-barred and sanctioned by the correct authority. The Tribunal held that the reply period under section 148A must be excluded, bringing the notice within three years and validating the sanction.
The Revenue argued for exclusion of the 148A show-cause period to justify approval. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the exclusion proviso applies only prospectively from Finance Act 2023.
The issue was unexplained partner capital contribution. The ITAT held that clear proof of funding by the NRI husband with sufficient creditworthiness bars addition under section 69A.
The issue was whether an ex-parte reassessment for unexplained cash deposits could stand despite total non-compliance. The ITAT held that substantive justice required one final opportunity and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
ITAT held that section 69 cannot be invoked where purchases are duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels, making the reassessment unsustainable.
The dispute concerned computation of capital gains on sale of shares affected by corporate actions. The Tribunal affirmed that detailed tranche-wise analysis and statutory indexation justified allowance of long-term capital loss.
ITAT Ahmedabad remanded a ₹2.28 crore unexplained property investment case to the AO, allowing the assessee one final opportunity to provide supporting documents, while imposing a ₹5,000 cost for non-compliance.
ITAT Delhi overturned a ₹2.61 crore addition under sections 144/147, noting notices were sent to the wrong address and the illiterate assessee was deprived of proper hearing.
The ITAT held that unrecorded sales cannot be taxed in full under Section 69A. Only the profit element at a reasonable GP rate is assessable as business income.
