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 cash deposited from recorded demonetisation-period sales cannot be treated as unexplained when books and VAT turnover are accepted. Suspicion without evidence cannot justify section 69A additions.
The assessee could not respond to notices due to death during proceedings. ITAT ruled that bona fide non-compliance cannot override documentary evidence that fully explains the source of cash deposits.
The issue was whether property investment could be treated as unexplained in reassessment proceedings. The ITAT held that where bank trails, NRE accounts, and loan documents fully explain the source, additions cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless scheme became mandatory was invalid. The key takeaway is that failure to follow the faceless mechanism nullifies the entire reopening, regardless of merits.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits representing trading receipts cannot be taxed in full as unexplained income. Only the estimated profit portion was directed to be assessed.
The issue was whether reassessment and appellate orders could stand when participation was ineffective and grounds remained undecided. The Tribunal ruled that justice required restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal observed that Way Bills produced by the assessee prima facie supported the claim of business sales. The addition was therefore set aside and restored for fresh verification.
The tribunal deleted the balance addition of ₹91,090 after finding that the amounts represented periodic rental receipts duly disclosed with TDS credit. The key takeaway is that disclosed income cannot be re-taxed as unexplained cash.
The ITAT set aside a ₹1.86 crore addition under section 69A for unexplained deposits, noting the deposits were likely student fees. The ruling emphasizes the need to verify exempt income before making tax additions.
The ITAT held that equity share purchases routed through the disclosed bank account cannot be treated as unexplained without proper verification. The AO was directed to provide transaction details and re-examine the source to avoid double additions.
