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 ruled that after primary evidence is furnished, the assessee is not required to prove the source of source under section 68, especially where the AO fails to conduct enquiry u/s 131 or 133(6).
The Tribunal quashed reassessment where the Assessing Officer invoked section 147 without examining books of account or correlating bank deposits with returned income.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 on 31.07.2022 for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation under the amended section 149. Reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.
Applying a liberal approach, the tribunal condoned delay in appeal filing and examined the jurisdictional defect. Since reopening was initiated by the wrong authority, the assessment could not survive.
he tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless authority violate the mandatory faceless assessment framework. Such jurisdictional defects render the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal found the appellate order mechanical where Rule 46A evidence was filed but not examined. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
Demonetisation cash deposits cannot be taxed merely on suspicion when supported by statutory VAT/Excise records, sales growth, and business expansion. Rule 46A(4) empowers CIT(A) to call for such evidence without triggering procedural violations.
The issue was whether demonetisation-era deposits could be taxed despite admitted prior withdrawals. ITAT held that when withdrawals are genuine and the occasion is real, section 69A cannot be applied on presumptions.
ITAT Hyderabad held that trade advance given to goldsmith for making gold jewellery and excess amount paid has been received back in cash. The same cannot be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 is directed to be deleted.
The AO invoked Explanation 1(v) to section 153 to justify delay. The Tribunal clarified that an invalid 142A reference gives no such protection, rendering the order time-barred.
