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 Delhi held that assessments under section 153C are invalid if the AO of the searched person fails to record a mandatory satisfaction note, emphasizing jurisdictional compliance.
The Tribunal held that the timing of loan disbursals and demonetization supported the assessee’s explanation. Key takeaway: partial relief granted by accepting most of the deposit as explained.
The Tribunal found that hearing notices were sent to the wrong email address, resulting in an ex-parte order. The matter was remanded to the AO after directing the assessee to deposit ₹5,000 as costs.
ITAT held that most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
ITAT held that post-29.03.2022, notices must be issued faceless; issuance by JAO violated law, invalidating the reopening and assessment.
ITAT Mumbai condoned 75-day delay in filing appeal, recognizing assessee’s illiteracy and reliance on tax consultant, allowing fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the ex-parte CIT(A) order where notices were sent to a wrong email ID, causing non-receipt by the assessee. The matter, including Sec.69A addition and denial of cross-examination, was remitted to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Explains the centralization of digital platforms, surveillance powers, and opaque governance. Key takeaway: citizens have limited oversight over critical digital systems.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte confirmation of a cash-deposit addition and directed fresh examination after the assessee produced sale-related documents. The key takeaway is that additions under section 69 require proper verification of evidence.
The Tribunal held that deposits in the assessee’s bank account represented genuine receivables from a previously acknowledged liquor business. Since the source was documented and undisputed, the Sec.69A addition of Rs.12.21 lakhs was deleted.
