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 ruled that cash deposits made during demonetisation were justified by proceeds from sale of agricultural land. Tribunal upheld deletion of the ₹1.28 crore addition under Section 69A, confirming that registered sale deeds and evidence of cash flow adequately established the source of the funds.
ITAT Jaipur quashed an addition of Rs.14.47 lakh made under Section 69A because the assessment was framed by a Jaipur-based AO who lacked territorial jurisdiction over the assessee residing in Sri Ganganagar. The Tribunal ruled that the objection to jurisdiction, raised by the assessee and unrebutted by the Revenue, renders the entire assessment order void ab initio.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that excess stock admitted during a survey is taxed as business income only if a direct nexus to regular business is proven; otherwise, it’s taxed as undisclosed income under Section 115BBE. The verdict split across two assessment years based on whether the disclosure was linked to sales or simply admitted as unexplained.
ITAT Delhi upheld reassessment on an individual for AY 2017-18, finding that existence of dual PANs and huge undisclosed demonetization cash deposits constituted tangible material. Tribunal confirmed that sufficiency of material is irrelevant at reopening stage, only prima facie belief matters when notice is issued within four years.
The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)’s pragmatic decision to restrict an addition of ₹8.21 crore for unexplained cash deposits to a 5% profit margin on the total deposits. This estimation was deemed reasonable, considering the nature of the assessee’s pottery trading business where full documentation was absent, balancing commercial reality with revenue protection.
The ITAT Dehradun quashed an entire reassessment, holding the mandatory notice under Section 148 invalid because it was sent to an old postal address and a wrong email ID. The ruling confirms that non-service of the foundational notice renders all subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that an assessment made against a duplicate “Company PAN” for a non-existent entity was void ab initio. This led to the deletion of a ₹3.18 crore cash addition, as the bank account and transactions belonged to a proprietary concern already assessed.
The ITAT Dehradun ruled that deposits in employees’ bank accounts, even when handled by the business, cannot be treated as the employer’s unexplained income under Section 69A. Following a precedent in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal confirmed these amounts belong to the employees.
ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, holding that the AO lacked jurisdiction because the necessary approval for the Section 148 notice, issued for A.Y. 2017-18 after three years, was obtained from the wrong authority. Following jurisdictional precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that the invalid approval under Section 151 vitiates the entire reassessment process.
The ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment proceedings, declaring the assessment order void ab initio due to critical procedural failures, including the use of a manual DIN and jurisdictional violation of the Faceless Assessment regime. This ruling affirms the mandatory nature of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 for all tax orders.
