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 Mumbai held that addition under Section 69A could not survive when based solely on a third-party statement without granting cross-examination. The Tribunal ruled that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of cross-examination in a case based on third-party statements and seized records violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment after granting the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessee cannot be taxed on excess income wrongly declared in the return due to inadvertent error. The Tribunal deleted the Section 69A addition after accepting agricultural income evidence.
The ITAT Bangalore condoned a 28-day delay in filing appeal after accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding non-noticing of electronically communicated appellate order. The Tribunal adopted a justice-oriented approach.
The ITAT Rajkot reduced the addition on demonetization cash deposits after finding that the assessee had produced land records, cash flow statements, and other supporting evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the disputed amount.
ITAT Delhi held that if Government money was fraudulently routed through the assessee’s account by another person, such deposits may not constitute the assessee’s income. The case was remanded for factual verification.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 69A could not be invoked where the Assessing Officer himself accepted that transactions were recorded in the books of account. The matter was remanded for limited verification of sales records and related documents.
ITAT Delhi held that effective opportunity of hearing was not provided before passing ex parte assessment and appellate orders. The matter relating to sustained addition was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Bangalore ITAT held that revision proceedings under Section 264 are intended to provide relief to taxpayers and cannot worsen their position. The Tribunal struck down an enhanced addition made after remand proceedings during demonetisation cash deposit verification.
Delhi ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp messages and digital chats cannot by themselves establish undisclosed cash transactions. The Tribunal deleted additions made solely on presumptions without independent evidence.
