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 wrist watches are valuable articles covered under Section 69A, and additions made under Section 69 were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a continuously maintained ledger found during search constituted reliable evidence. Additions for unexplained expenditure under section 69C were sustained based on corroborated diary entries.
Cash deposits were added as unexplained money due to alleged lack of proof. The Tribunal ruled that a plausible and documented source cannot be rejected without contrary evidence.
The reassessment was struck down because it relied exclusively on third-party search material. The ruling clarifies that section 153C, not section 147, must be invoked where incriminating evidence emerges from another persons search.
The AO had treated all bank cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that regular cash sales explained most deposits and restricted the addition to ₹10 lakh only.
The dispute involved taxability of large cash deposits made during demonetisation. The appellate authority granted relief for deposits in regular notes while sustaining the balance as unexplained income. The Tribunal upheld this approach, finding it consistent with law and facts.
The Tribunal observed serious procedural lapses, including reliance on an unsigned third-party ledger and denial of cross-examination. To balance equities, only an estimated profit portion was brought to tax.
The Tribunal found that additions under section 69A were made without examining evidence due to non-compliance. The matter was remanded to allow verification of claimed trading and agricultural receipts.
The Tribunal clarified that the law does not permit selective or partial rejection of books under Section 145(3). In absence of specific defects, additions based on probabilities alone were set aside.
The tribunal held that taxing the full sale consideration as short-term capital gain without allowing cost of acquisition is legally incorrect. Capital gains must be computed on net gains, not gross receipts.
