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...
Explore the Harpreet Singh Grover vs. ITO case at ITAT Amritsar. Analysis of cash deposit controversy, CIT(A) decision, and ITAT’s order for de novo adjudication.
Lateef Abdul Mohd. successfully challenges ITAT Hyderabad decision on cash deposit addition during demonetization, citing sales correspondence and legal precedent.
As section 50C applies only to a capital asst, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land.
Col. Ranjan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank on 05.06.2015. I notice that the assessee has withdrawn cash in small amounts in subsequent period also. Since the assessee is an aged person and retired from army, it is quite possible that […]
Revenue cannot make the additions under Section 69A for the reason that assessee has not cooperated with the department.
Om Parkash Nahar Vs. ITO ( ITAT-Delhi) The amount deposited during demonetization period was relate to out of withdrawals from the same account from 2014,2015 & 2016 is not treated as income from undisclosed source The assessee’s explanation is that looking to his old age and suffering from various ailments as he had suffered a […]
Kiran Bala Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the learned AO that the assessee has declared long term capital gains of Rs.31,29,215/- towards sale of jewellery and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act against investment made in construction of house. Assessee was asked to […]
M/s Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Coming to the question regarding action of the learned CIT (Appeals) to treat the reference u/s 142 for the purpose of Section 69B, I find merit into the contention of the assessee that there is no power conferred upon the learned CIT(Appeals) to assess a […]
Entries relating to advances received from Hardev Singh and his son Maninder Singh Sahi from Canada were recorded in books of account and assessee also explained that amount was received as an advance for making investment in property by said person, and assessee was engaged in the property business. Assessee also requested AO to summon concerned party under section 131 but AO did not accede to the request of assessee and made the addition, therefore, addition made by AO was not justified.
Can capital contribution of the individual partners credited to their accounts in the books of the firm be taxed as cash credit in the hands of the firm, where the partners have admitted their capital contribution but failed to explain satisfactorily the source of receipt in their individual hands?
