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 case examined a large disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) for purchases from a group concern. The Tribunal ruled that without market comparables or proof of inflated pricing, related-party payments cannot be treated as excessive.
Delhi ITAT ruled that purchases from paper companies cannot be treated as normal business expenses under Section 37(1). Fraudulent transactions with no goods delivered attract unexplained expenditure taxation under Section 69C and 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that revision cannot be based on alleged lack of enquiry when detailed verification was already done. A mere change of opinion does not justify section 263 action.
Applying the timelines prescribed in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal found the notice issued after the permissible window. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to limitation in reassessment cases.
The assessee demonstrated that the ₹1.03 crore cash deposit arose from opening cash balance and collections from sundry debtors. The Tribunal held that the onus stood discharged and deleted the entire addition.
The ITAT Chennai held a reassessment notice under section 148 invalid as it was issued after the statutory limitation expired, emphasizing strict compliance with time limits.
The Tribunal held that mere possession of cash during seizure does not establish ownership for section 69A. Where the source is explained and ownership lies elsewhere, addition in the carrier’s hands is unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that taxing entire bank cash deposits under section 69A without examining business explanations is unsustainable. The reassessment was restored for de-novo adjudication with conditions.
The Tribunal held that once sale receipts are accepted as consideration from immovable property, they cannot be taxed as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessment was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT ruled that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on suspicion when transactions are supported by proper banking, demat, and broker records.
