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...
Ahmedabad ITAT deleted Rs. 9.64 lakh addition under Section 69A, holding that only net interest income is taxable after deducting interest expenditure on borrowed funds.
The issue was whether unexplained deposits of ₹94.89 lakh could be sustained when evidence was not produced due to a serious family medical crisis. The ITAT held that genuine hardship warranted a fresh opportunity and remanded the matter for proper verification.
The Revenue invoked section 115BBE based on cash found during proceedings. However, the Tribunal found the foundational approval under section 153D defective. The entire assessment was therefore quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that mere Whatsapp messages showing demand do not justify Section 69A additions unless actual receipt of money is proved.
The dispute concerned computation of capital gains on sale of shares affected by corporate actions. The Tribunal affirmed that detailed tranche-wise analysis and statutory indexation justified allowance of long-term capital loss.
The dispute involved taxing deposits despite a declared loss. The Tribunal held that when accounts show a loss, blanket addition of deposits is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening beyond four years must be granted by the specified higher authority. Approval by a Joint Commissioner was found incompetent and void. Consequently, the reassessment was struck down as without jurisdiction.
The ITAT held that loans and advances accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments cannot be doubted later without fresh incriminating material. Mere balance-sheet analysis or suspicion is insufficient.
The ITAT held that unrecorded sales cannot be taxed in full under Section 69A. Only the profit element at a reasonable GP rate is assessable as business income.
The case involved reassessment based on alleged cash payment for property. The Tribunal held that basic fact-checking is mandatory before confirming a ₹71.23 lakh addition under Section 69A.
