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 deleted Rs. 1.03 crore added under Section 69A, holding that funds remitted from the USA originated from disclosed long-term capital gains. Detailed bank records and SWIFT copies substantiated the source beyond doubt.
ITAT held that entire cash deposits of a business correspondent cannot be treated as unexplained income without verification. The AO must examine whether deposits were bank collections or the assessee’s own money.
Delhi appellate authority’s ex-parte confirmation of unexplained money under Section 69A was set aside. ITAT directed CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate afresh, granting one final hearing opportunity.
Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of addition under Section 69A for cash deposits from painting sales, ancestral jewellery, and customary gifts. Revenue failed to challenge the well-supported factual findings.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that detailed stock, sales, VAT, and bank records satisfactorily explained cash deposits of ₹2.07 crore, overturning additions made by AO and CIT(A).
The tribunal condoned a 458-day delay after an appeal order was sent to the wrong counsel. The case was remanded for fresh hearing to ensure the assessee’s full opportunity to present evidence in a demonetisation cash-deposit matter.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, upholding judicial precedents and deleting Rs. 6.66 crore addition, emphasizing that hypothetical income cannot be taxed.
The Tribunal quashed additions for bogus purchases, cash seizures, and transfer pricing adjustments, affirming the AOP’s unified management and correct taxation at the consortium level.
ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audited accounts. Since the AO brought no contrary evidence, the Section 69A addition was deleted.
ITAT held that the entire disputed turnover cannot be added when purchases are accepted and books are not rejected. Only the embedded profit is taxable, leading to restriction of addition to 5% of turnover.
