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...
The Tribunal held that treating part of the disclosed sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit amounts to double taxation. It directed deletion of the addition to the extent linked to the accepted sale consideration.
The Tribunal condoned a 298-day delay in filing appeal, holding that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. It deleted additions on exempt gratuity and commuted pension, ruling they cannot be taxed as salary.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer must prove actual possession of unexplained money with cogent evidence. Mere suspicion or reliance on third-party search statements is insufficient to justify addition under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that once satisfaction is recorded under Section 153C, assessment for covered years must proceed strictly under that provision. Framing assessment under Section 143(3) was declared jurisdictionally invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal restored the matter after holding that dismissal of the appeal without giving a chance to explain delay and cash deposits was not justified.
Calcutta High Court held that in a proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act of 1961, the PCIT is empowered to make such inquiry as he deems necessary and inspection of seized assets may very well form part of such inquiry. Accordingly, notice of inspection is duly sustainable and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
The Revenue treated cash deposits as unexplained under Section 69A despite matching withdrawals and opening cash balance. The Tribunal ruled that redeposit of available cash cannot be taxed as unexplained income.
The reassessment was challenged for want of proper approval. The Tribunal ruled that ritualistic sanction under Section 151 defeats jurisdiction and renders the reopening void.
The assessee challenged jurisdiction for lack of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal held that once the belated return was invalid, assessment under Section 144 was lawful.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A applies only when the assessee is found to be the owner of money or assets. Mere suspicion or digital communication cannot replace proof of possession or ownership.
