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 employer-provided business advances cannot be classified as income under Section 69A without proper verification, remanding the case for limited review of TDS and expense records.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot expand a limited scrutiny into full scrutiny without written approval from the Principal CIT. Additions under Sections 2(22)(e) and 69A were struck down, reaffirming that CBDT instructions are mandatory.
The Tribunal found that even a belated return filed in response to a Section 148 notice remains a valid return requiring a 143(2) notice. Because this mandatory notice was never issued, the reassessment order was declared illegal and set aside.
Tribunal ruled Section 54F exemption is not available when the assessee owns multiple independent residential units, each with a separate kitchen. Deduction on the JDA property was disallowed.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that WhatsApp chats without corroboration cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. All additions based solely on chats were deleted, emphasizing the need for tangible evidence.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was legally sound and unaffected by arguments based on 153C or Notification 18/2022. Still, it directed a full rehearing because the appellate authority issued non-speaking orders without examining the merits.
ITAT Hyderabad rules that gross sale proceeds of capital assets cannot be treated as taxable income without allowing cost of acquisition. Tribunal orders reassessment to compute correct capital gains, despite assessee’s non-compliance.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence such as partnership deeds, royalty ledgers, and source-wise cash deposit mapping. Since AO never verified these materials, the addition under Section 69A could not be sustained. The issue was restored for proper factual examination.
ITAT Raipur ruled that cash deposits made by an advocate on behalf of clients cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO and CIT(A)/NFAC conducted no inquiry and ignored over 100 supporting challans. This reinforces the principle that evidence and factual verification are essential before making additions.
Evidence demonstrated frequent withdrawals and redeposits across years, confirming the legitimacy of the cash held. The Tribunal ruled that the deposits were fully explained, warranting removal of the Section 69A/115BBE addition.
