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 Kolkata quashed a reassessment order, holding that NFAC had no jurisdiction before the formal notification of Section 151A. The ₹2.14 crore addition was deleted, highlighting that faceless assessments cannot be retroactively enforced.
The Income Tax authorities treated LTCG from Kappac Pharma shares as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal confirmed the transactions were genuine, supported by demat and broker records. The addition under Section 68 and related commission expenses were deleted.
ITAT partly allowed appeal against additions under section 144, applying 6% net profit instead of AO’s 8% on total cash deposits. Returned income under section 44AD was deducted, and normal tax rates applied instead of section 115BBE.
Assessee proved long-term capital gains of ₹1 crore from Mishkafin Finance shares via broker notes, bank statements, and STT-paid transactions. Addition under section 69A was deleted due to lack of evidence.
ITAT held that cash deposits made by directors before investing in share capital cannot be treated as unexplained income of the company. The ruling emphasizes that proper identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness documentation must be evaluated before invoking Section 68.
ITAT holds that ignoring a valid online reply and supporting records vitiates reassessment; AO must first verify whether deposits were already in books before taxing. Key takeaway: non-consideration of evidence makes additions unsustainable.
The ITAT held that notices under Section 148 issued by JAO post-29.03.2022 lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment was annulled, emphasizing only Faceless Assessing Officers can issue such notices.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for verification of corporate credit card payments. The decision emphasizes that taxpayers must be provided a final opportunity to substantiate deposits and income before any additions are finalized. This safeguards procedural fairness in tax proceedings.
Tribunal held that a reassessment cannot be triggered solely on another person’s search statement. With no evidence against the assessee, the 147 proceedings and bogus-purchase addition were struck down.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits were fully explained through matching earlier withdrawals. The addition of ₹15 lakh was removed as the source of funds was satisfactorily proven.
