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 agricultural land situated beyond notified municipal limits is not a capital asset under the Income Tax Act. It deleted the entire capital gains addition arising from sale of such land.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced in a partnership firm cannot be treated as unexplained merely on suspicion when confirmations, bank statements, and source details are available. The entire addition of ₹29 lakh under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that participation by a legal heir does not validate notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a deceased assessee. Proceedings must be initiated strictly under Section 159 against legal representatives.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. Proper verification and rebuttal of evidence are necessary before sustaining additions under Section 69A.
ITAT Mumbai held that incomplete WhatsApp chats without proof of completed transactions cannot justify additions under Section 69A. The Tribunal found that the chats lacked corroborative evidence showing actual payment of money.
ITAT Delhi held that where sales are accepted and purchases are supported by invoices and banking transactions, only the profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. The Tribunal restricted the addition by applying the average profit rate instead of sustaining the entire disallowance.
ITAT Delhi restored a Section 69A addition after holding that the assessee failed to produce evidence supporting its claim that the seized cash was meant for inter-branch transfer. The Tribunal found the explanation unsupported and inconsistent with available records.
The Delhi ITAT held that informal WhatsApp conversations without corroborative evidence cannot establish unexplained investment under Section 69A. Since no excess jewellery, invoices, or payment proof were found, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT Amritsar reduced additions on unexplained cash deposits after considering that the assessee and his wife were senior citizens with no regular income source. The Tribunal allowed part of the deposits as past savings and household cash availability.
ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statement forms the basis of the assessment. The Tribunal ruled that reliance on such untested statements violates principles of natural justice and renders the addition legally unsustainable.
