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...
Income Tax : A Comprehensive Analysis of Undisclosed Incomes under Sections 68 to 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Taxation of these Incomes Un...
Income Tax : Understand income tax rules for cash deposits in businesses using presumptive taxation (Sec 44AD, 44AE). Learn about unexplained c...
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 Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, upholding judicial precedents and deleting R...
Income Tax : The Tribunal quashed additions for bogus purchases, cash seizures, and transfer pricing adjustments, affirming the AOP’s unified...
Income Tax : ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audit...
Income Tax : ITAT held that the entire disputed turnover cannot be added when purchases are accepted and books are not rejected. Only the embed...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that employer-provided business advances cannot be classified as income under Section 69A without proper verific...
ITAT Hyderabad rules that gross sale proceeds of capital assets cannot be treated as taxable income without allowing cost of acquisition. Tribunal orders reassessment to compute correct capital gains, despite assessee’s non-compliance.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence such as partnership deeds, royalty ledgers, and source-wise cash deposit mapping. Since AO never verified these materials, the addition under Section 69A could not be sustained. The issue was restored for proper factual examination.
ITAT Raipur ruled that cash deposits made by an advocate on behalf of clients cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO and CIT(A)/NFAC conducted no inquiry and ignored over 100 supporting challans. This reinforces the principle that evidence and factual verification are essential before making additions.
Evidence demonstrated frequent withdrawals and redeposits across years, confirming the legitimacy of the cash held. The Tribunal ruled that the deposits were fully explained, warranting removal of the Section 69A/115BBE addition.
ITAT held that the assessee operated as a commission agent, not a trader, making Section 44AD inapplicable. A reasonable 5% estimation on cash deposits was upheld.
The ITAT ruled that unresolved legal grounds—especially on reassessment validity—must first be decided by the CIT(A). The ₹3.32 crore Section 69A addition is remanded for proper adjudication.
Additions based on decoded entries from a third-party cash book were struck down, as they did not align with the assessee’s audited books or bank statements, reinforcing the ‘dumb document’ principle.
The ITAT held that issuance of Section 148 notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer violates Section 151A, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
Detailed seized agreement and subsequent sale deed considered strong corroboration. Addition under Section 69A sustained in search-based reassessment.
Tribunal held that ownership records alone cannot justify agricultural income; absence of Khasra and produce-sale evidence required remand. Cultivation must be proved with proper documentation.
