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...
ITAT held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was valid because the Assessing Officer followed CBDT Instruction 1/2022 and the Supreme Court’s decision on reassessment procedures. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the notice was barred by limitation.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional officer rather than through the mandatory faceless system. The assessment order was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits routed through a partners personal bank account were explained as firms business receipts. Without evidence of undisclosed sources, Section 69A addition cannot be made.
The Tribunal condoned a 161-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence showing the assessee suffered an accident and dengue fever. The ruling reiterates that courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach in condonation matters.
The Tribunal accepted that the deposits represented funds withdrawn earlier for house construction. Since the explanation was supported by loan records and confirmations, the addition was removed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when they fall within accepted business turnover declared under the presumptive taxation scheme. Once turnover is accepted under Section 44AD, separate additions for such deposits are generally not justified.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings must follow proper procedure when the assessee is deceased. The tax authority must issue notice to the legal representative before initiating proceedings.
The Tribunal held that failure to consider additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. It restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for consolidated de-novo adjudication.
The High Court held that penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269SS. In the absence of such finding in the assessment order, the penalty was set aside.
