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...
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...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
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 Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to a...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and b...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limita...
Income Tax : Tribunal dismissed a Revenue appeal after finding that additions were made solely on basis of entries in a seized Excel file. It h...
Karnataka High Court held that blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 blocking the tweets/accounts for an indefinite period are unassailable on the doctrine of proportionality.
ITAT Dehradun held that addition of cash deposits made during the demonetization period unsustained as predominant source of income was only agricultural income and no other source of income is brought on record by AO.
The Hon’ble Tribunal while allowing Revenue Appeal have held that when the amounts received in cash against the sale of flats which have not been recorded in the books of account of the assessee at the time of search and seizure operation and subsequently recorded in the books as advance from customers is nothing but an eye wash to supplement the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash receipts. Therefore the addition made by the AO deserves to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.
In a recent case, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable when the source of income is disclosed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as present case doesn’t involve invocation of any of the sections i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as cash proceeds already reflected in Profit & Loss account, hence addition u/s 68 will amount to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts and due explanation with regard to source of loan transaction is provided, addition u/s 69A towards unexplained money unsustainable.
ITAT Amritsar held that revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as AO accepted the deal of sale of agriculture land with a conscious and independent application of mind.
In Ram Kishan Vs ITO case, ITAT Delhi ruled that no addition u/s 69A of Income Tax Act when income source was appropriately explained during assessment.
ITAT Amritsar’s decision in the case of Hari Chand Vs ITO. The appeal challenged the addition of unexplained cash deposits and undisclosed interest income. The ITAT remitted the case back to the AO for further adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper verification and a reasonable opportunity for the assessee. Gain insights into the grounds raised by the assessee and the arguments presented by both parties in this case.
