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 assessee neither filed returns nor responded to statutory notices, yet additions were deleted on appeal. ITAT held that absence of verification of source and compliance makes such deletion unsustainable.
Demonetisation-era jewellery sales were questioned as invoices mentioned buyers only as cash. The ITAT remanded the matter to verify buyer identity, stock linkage, and genuineness before sustaining any addition.
Cash deposited during demonetisation was explained as coming from income surrendered and accepted in an earlier survey. The Tribunal held that disbelief about holding cash cannot replace evidence and deleted the section 69A addition.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal accepted possible redeposit of earlier withdrawals and restricted the addition to ₹2 lakh.
The Revenue taxed entire demonetisation cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A with section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that cash sales are possible in retail trade and restricted the addition to a 10% GP estimate.
The Revenue treated entire cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that in an unorganised business, deposits can be treated as turnover with estimated profits.
The dispute concerned cancellation of IDS benefits due to non-payment. The Tribunal held that once IDS lapses, undisclosed income is taxable with mandatory penalty.
The issue was whether year-old cash withdrawals could explain demonetisation-era deposits. ITAT held that absence of a direct nexus and contrary bank entries justified addition under section 69A.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that satisfaction must be recorded contemporaneously or immediately after the searched person’s assessment. Any belated recording invalidates the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C.
ITAT Rajkot held that there is no escapement of income or loss of revenue since tax paid on the basis of consolidated profit of both the partnership firm and hence reassessment proceedings are not sustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
