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 held that income admitted during search cannot be treated as undisclosed income unless supported by incriminating material found in the search. In the absence of such material, penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal found that notices issued manually by the jurisdictional officer contravene the faceless reassessment framework. There is no concurrent jurisdiction between faceless and jurisdictional officers. Any reassessment initiated this way is invalid from inception.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that unexplained cash credit under Section 68 must be netted off against business income to prevent double addition. The ruling ensures accurate assessment and fair taxation.
Cash deposits were rightly taxed as unexplained money when the assessee failed to discharge the primary burden of proof. Absence of contemporaneous evidence defeats claims of redeposit of cash.
The Tribunal struck down reopening where reasons conflicted and rested solely on AIR cash-deposit data. The key takeaway is that reassessment needs a clear, reasoned nexus.
The ITAT held that cash redeposited after a clearly documented bank withdrawal cannot be treated as unexplained. The ruling emphasizes that verifiable fund movement defeats section 69A additions.
Hyderabad ITAT held that even a delayed return filed during assessment is valid, and absence of mandatory Section 143(2) notice renders the entire assessment void.
The issue was unexplained partner capital contribution. The ITAT held that clear proof of funding by the NRI husband with sufficient creditworthiness bars addition under section 69A.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that credit entries in the assessee’s account were correctly assessed, even though initial cash deposits belonged to a company, ensuring proper attribution of income.
The Revenue relied only on the builder’s settlement disclosure to tax the buyer. The ITAT held that third-party admissions, without corroboration or cross-examination, cannot fasten liability on the assessee.
