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 Revenue relied on third-party statements and WhatsApp data to allege an unrecorded ₹25 crore cash loan, but brought no supporting inquiry or cross-examination. The Tribunal held that the AO’s conclusion was speculative, especially when bank-backed evidence, TDS records, and a registered loan agreement supported only a ₹10 crore loan. Key takeaway: additions under Section 69A require concrete evidence, not assumptions.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of the faceless authority violated Section 151A. With the notice invalid, the reassessment and jewellery addition were quashed.
ITAT Chennai ruled that notional contract values in F&O trading cannot be treated as real income. The case was sent back to the AO for reassessment based on actual profits and losses.
Tribunal held that additions for excess gold stock under Section 69A could not stand when purchases, job-work gold, and export stock were fully supported by invoices, confirmations, and bank records. The ruling emphasizes that reconciled and verified records override survey-time assumptions.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits were fully supported by stock records and sales invoices, proving they were genuine business receipts. It ruled that Section 68 cannot apply to recorded turnover already taxed.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules routine cash deposits of small traders cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, even if no return is filed.
Tribunal deleted Rs. 10 lakh addition made under Section 68 where lender’s deposits were not independently verified. The assessee had no failure in proving identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness. Key takeaway: mere timing of lender’s bank deposits cannot trigger Section 68 addition without corroborative evidence
The assessee’s capital-gain computation and share-transaction trail matched disclosed data. ITAT held the AO’s conclusion to be unsupported and dismissed Revenue’s appeal.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since the same is out of the cash sales and both cash book and books of account justifies the same. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
