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...
Shail Jayesh Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the copy of the bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank, we find that assessee had deposited Rs.6 lakh in cash in 600 old currency notes of Rs. 1000 denomination on 01/12/2016. At a glance, it may appear that since the assessee had sufficient cash in hand amounting […]
Arvind Purseth Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Cuttack) It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the only issue in the appeal of the assessee was that TDS had not been deducted in respect of payments made to M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. and M/s Gulshan Freight Carrier. It was the submission that Form 26A had been […]
M. Vijayakumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the CIT(A) has not doubted the source of maturity of assessee’s father FDs of Rs.8 lakhs which was withdrawn on 01.11.2016. Admittedly, the assessee made deposit on 10.11.2016 in cash, this amount of Rs.8 lakhs. The only dispute is confirmation, which now the assessee confirmed by […]
Narender Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceeding, the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits in the bank account by stating that it was out of gift received from his grand-father Shri Phool Singh. The Assessing Officer, however, has rejected assessee’s claim as the notice issued under Section 133(6) […]
ITAT Delhi held that where the property is not recorded in the books of account and explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of property is not offered satisfactorily then value of such property would be deemed to be income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as cash deposit of INR 4.50 cr. is income under the scheme Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) and the same is cleared by a valid declaration under the scheme.
ITAT Chennai held that addition for cash deposits out of marriage gift under section 69A partly deleted as in Indian Customs during marriages guests and relatives will give gift depending upon their social status and economic condition
Assessee, a retired bank employee earning pension, deposited Rs.15 lakhs cash in his bank account on 13.11.2016 which he explained as withdrawal on 13.10.2015 or a perceived need and kept the cash with him and the very same cash was deposited . AO rejected the explanation for the reason that the assessee failed to explain the perceived need for which cash was withdrawn holding that no prudent person would keep cash and lose interest if he deposits the money in FD. AO treated the cash deposit u/s 69A. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
Asokan Meena Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) It is an admitted fact that the assessee has filed her return of income for the AY 2016-17 in ITR-4 and has maintained books of accounts, but for the AY 2017-18, she had filed return of income u/s.44AD of the Act, and estimated net profit without any books of […]
Kaliannan Ganesan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) It transpired that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.13.30 Lacs post demonetization as tabulated assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to substantiate the source of the same. The assessee is stated to be engaged in poultry farm business and trading of eggs. AO held that there was […]
