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 Chandigarh allowed a delayed appeal of 457 days, holding that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay and the Limitation Act provisions applied. Appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT remitted the case for fresh assessment after the assessee challenged unexplained cash additions, highlighting the need for proper documentation and adherence to natural justice in tax proceedings.
Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation for delay and held that denial of opportunity justified remand for fresh assessment under Section 147/144B.
ITAT ruled that ₹10 lakh deposit in demonetisation period, backed by gifts, savings, and sale of gold, cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69A.
The appellate authority held that additions cannot be sustained solely on external information without independent verification. Bogus purchase claims under Section 69A were deleted.
The appellate authority held that unexplained cash additions under Section 69A require evidence, not mere suspicion. Cash from property sale deposited after ten months was justified and deletion allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transaction duly proved. Accordingly, CIT(A) order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal reduced unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs.11.59 lakh to Rs.2.59 lakh, noting both the taxpayer and the department failed to fully substantiate their claims during the demonetization scrutiny.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment in property under Section 69A. The tribunal noted that being an NRI, the assessee could not access required documents in time, warranting reconsideration by the AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad remitted the case back to the AO after CIT(A) upheld an addition of ₹2.47 crore as unexplained share capital. The assessee had provided detailed bank records, personal books, and PAN/ITR proofs which were ignored, violating principles of natural justice.
