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 Hyderabad held that limitation for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act would be only 3 years from the end of the assessment year since material suggesting escapement is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. Hence, notice issued u/s. 148 is beyond period of limitation of three years hence quashed.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the appeal without a reasoned order violated appellate duties. All issues were restored for de novo consideration with directions to ensure due opportunity.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that prior withdrawals from the bank sufficiently explained the deposits, warranting deletion of the addition.
The tribunal held that cash deposits were largely explained through earlier withdrawals and business receipts. Only an estimated 10% addition was sustained, and harsh taxation under section 115BBE was ruled out.
Where updated cash books explained the cash found and no defects were pointed out, additions under section 69A were held unsustainable. Substantiation with regular books prevailed over search-time snapshots.
The Tribunal found that reasonable opportunity was not given at assessment or appellate stage. The ₹17.94 lakh addition was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
The case examined whether a General Power of Attorney could be treated as a Joint Development Agreement for taxing capital gains. The Tribunal held that a GPA does not amount to a transfer, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that estimating profit at 20% of turnover in a milk trading business was arbitrary and unsupported by industry realities. It restricted the gross profit rate to 5%, recognising wastage, spoilage, and thin margins typical to the trade.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
