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 Delhi held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material found during search and set aside assessments for AYs 2013–14 and 2014–15.
ITAT Chandigarh restricted the unexplained cash addition to ₹2.5 lakh, deleting ₹10 lakh in Sher Singh vs ITO for AY 2017–18, citing partial explanation from agricultural and milk income.
ITAT held that no addition under Section 69A was justified when the jewellery found during search was less than the amount already declared in wealth tax returns. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case of Harshang Kaushikkumar Rami vs ITO to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of Rs. 5 crore cash deposits treated as unexplained income.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld annulment of a ₹1.73 crore assessment, ruling that Section 148 notice was issued in name of a person who had died four years earlier. Tribunal affirmed that proceedings against a deceased person are a fatal jurisdictional defect and void ab initio.
The ITAT Ahmedabad reversed the CIT(A)’s deletion, upholding the addition of ₹6.73 lakh under Section 69A for bogus Long-Term Capital Gain from Safal Herbs Ltd. shares. The Tribunal ruled that the sudden investment in the obscure scrip, coupled with an unreasonable price rise, defied commercial logic and was an accommodation entry.
The issue was whether a large cash holding was unexplained money under Section 69A post-demonetization. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, accepting that the cash originated from earlier, disclosed bank withdrawals. Key Takeaway: The burden of proof to disprove the source from prior withdrawals rests with the Department; mere suspicion isn’t enough for an addition.
Tribunal held that Section 69A covers unexplained money, not loans recorded in books. As all 14 lenders confirmed transactions with evidence, ₹1.86 crore addition was deleted.
The ITAT deleted the entire addition made under Section 69A concerning demonetisation cash deposits, ruling in favor of a retired government employee. The Tribunal held that deposits from verifiable sources like gratuity, leave encashment, salary arrears, and loan repayment were genuinely explained and not unexplained income.
ITAT Chandigarh quashed an assessment order made under Section 143(3) for a pre-search year, holding that after a Section 132 search, the assessment must mandatorily proceed under Section 148 with proper Section 148B approval. The tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s continuation of the scrutiny post-search was a jurisdictional error, making the assessment void ab initio.
