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 ruled that authorities erred by ignoring the sale deed, receipt, and bank statements solely due to a technical lapse in return filing. Since the documents clearly established the source of cash, the addition could not survive. The order directed deletion of the section 69A addition.
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Additions made by the AO and CIT(A) during demonetization were deleted, preventing double taxation.
Tribunal held that demonetisation cash deposits represented genuine business sales and could not be taxed as unexplained income under sections 68/115BBE. Only ₹25 lakhs was sustained due to incomplete explanation, with the remaining addition deleted.
Assessments relying on third-party search material were struck down due to non-recording of satisfaction by AOs of both the searched party and the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed that 153A applies only to searches on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that unverified WhatsApp chats without Section 65B certification cannot justify additions under Section 69A. Key takeaway: digital messages must be authenticated and corroborated before being used against taxpayers.
The Tribunal found that the assessee’s audited accounts, finalized before demonetisation, clearly established sufficient cash balance to cover the ₹14 lakh deposit. Since Revenue produced no evidence of inflation or manipulation, the addition under Section 69A could not survive.
The Tribunal noted conflicting positions regarding the evidence submitted by the assessee in support of agricultural income. Since the assessment appeared incomplete and lacked thorough verification, the case was returned to the AO. The ruling directs a fair reassessment and deletion of the addition if documentary proof is found satisfactory.
Explains when co-operative societies providing credit to members can claim full deductions under section 80P(2)(a)(i) despite having nominal members.
The Tribunal held that substantial bank deposits without filing a return provided adequate basis to reopen under section 147. Notice-service objections failed due to section 292BB, and the quantum issue was remanded for verification. The ruling confirms that prima facie material is sufficient for reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-payment of advance tax without first seeking clarification from the assessee. Since the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that no advance tax was due, the ITAT restored the matter for fresh consideration. Key takeaway: procedural conditions under Section 249(4)(b) must be applied with fairness and opportunity of hearing.
