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 dispute concerned rejection of explanation for cash deposits due to lack of documentation. The Tribunal ruled that evidence relating to sale of inherited assets was vital and must be examined afresh by the tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that past cash withdrawals cannot justify demonetisation deposits without evidence of continued cash holding. The is that unexplained deposits attract section 69A.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 is invalid if notice under Section 143(2) is not issued after filing of return. Entire proceedings quashed for procedural lapse.
The reassessment was framed ex-parte after notices were served on a wrong email address. ITAT Delhi ruled that effective hearing is a sine qua non under the law, and proceedings based on faulty service cannot stand. The case was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal examined opening cash balance of ₹6.16 lakh brought forward from prior year. CIT(A) had disallowed it, but AO verification confirmed its genuineness. ITAT set aside the addition under Section 69A and allowed the appeal.
The assessee alleged denial of opportunity and improper handling of evidence. The Tribunal agreed that the appellate order was passed without due consideration of records and remand findings. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that accepting demonetised currency beyond the permitted date does not ipso facto create unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee’s cash sales were already included in gross turnover, so no further addition was justified.
The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 10,00,059/- as the addition was based solely on uncorroborated third-party information. No primary evidence linked the assessee to the alleged accommodation entries.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
