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...
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The ITAT held that the appellate authority mechanically affirmed reassessment additions without independent examination of merits. The matter was remanded to grant the assessee a fair and effective opportunity to explain cash deposits and other additions.
The ITAT ruled that section 69A cannot be invoked unless ownership of cash is established. Mere third-party seized ledgers without recovery of money are insufficient to sustain an addition.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained money provisions cannot be applied on conjectures when the source of cash is reasonably explained. With no dispute on withdrawals and savings, the demonetisation-period addition failed on merits.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits could be added as unexplained despite income being declared under section 44AD. The Tribunal held that presumptive taxation shields routine business deposits, though a reasonable lump-sum addition was justified where receipts were partly unsubstantiated.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money towards bogus long term capital gains not sustained since assessee has proved the genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares as ordinary investor.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A applies only to money not recorded in books of account. Additions based on duly recorded, bank-routed transactions were found unsustainable.
The assessee claimed the firm had dissolved and deposits belonged to a partner. The Tribunal held that absence of documentary proof justified treating bank deposits as unexplained income.
The Tribunal deleted an addition under Section 69A after holding that cash deposits were explained through prior bank withdrawals. The ruling affirms that redeposit of own withdrawn cash cannot be treated as unexplained.
ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 69C cannot be made if the AO exceeds the scope of directions issued under Section 263, emphasizing procedural compliance.
