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 ITAT deleted Rs. 59.39 lakh added under Section 69A, holding that the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetisation were fully explained via cash books and bank statements. The ruling reinforces that documented withdrawals cannot be treated as unexplained income without contrary evidence.
The Tribunal concluded that section 189 is only a machinery provision and cannot be invoked to assess alleged income arising long after a firm has ceased to exist. Since no evidence showed any business activity post-2012, the reopening for AY 2017-18 was invalid. The order quashing the reassessment also nullified the related addition and penalty.
Demat and broker records showed actual purchases of Rs. 1.24 crore and sales of Rs. 85 lakh, contradicting the AO’s addition of Rs. 2.11 crore. The Tribunal remitted the matter for detailed examination. Proper transaction-wise verification is essential before treating share activity as unexplained income.
ITAT held that cash deposits made during demonetization without proof of source justified addition under Section 69A. The ruling reinforces that dissolved entities must substantiate cash claims with evidence.
ITAT Rajkot partly allowed appeal, directing that 90% of cash deposited during demonetisation be accepted as explained, with only 10% taxable under normal income tax.
Tribunal invalidated the reassessment because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain mandatory approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii), rendering the Section 148 notice void.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹38 lakh additions under Sections 68 and 69A, accepting that agricultural income was misreported due to a clerical error and demonetization cash was properly explained.
ITAT partly upheld addition of Rs.27.5 lakh as unexplained cash under sections 69A and 115BBE, granting limited relief of Rs.7.5 lakh for partial savings.
The ITAT confirmed an addition of Rs. 28 lakh under Section 69A, ruling that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits made over four years. Burden of proof lies on the taxpayer to explain deposits.
ITAT restricted unexplained cash addition from Rs.78 lakhs to Rs.7 lakhs, granting relief on demonetization deposits while maintaining that it is not a precedent-setting decision.
