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 deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited, ruling that the penalty cannot survive once the original quantum assessment (which determined the high turnover) is set aside. Since the AO later accepted the returned income, the statutory basis for the penalty lapsed.
Chennai ITAT remanded an ex parte assessment back to the CIT(A) after the assessee filed an affidavit promising full cooperation and no adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT Mumbai condoned a 388-day delay and remanded the case of Dahisar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat to the Assessing Officer to verify ₹29.46 lakh in cash deposits claimed to be received from members during demonetisation, directing a fresh assessment after fair hearing.
The Tribunal sustained the addition due to the AO’s rejection of the books under s.145, which was warranted by the assessee’s non-submission of separate purchase/sale and MRP details for country liquor and IMFL. The ITAT found the 10 estimated GP rate reasonable, falling within the normal range for the liquor trade, and confirmed the addition.
ITAT Jaipur held that gain not realized during the year under consideration cannot be taxed under the head capital gain or as income under the head profit and gains of business or profession by valuing unsold scrips at market value.
The central issue was the validity of a reassessment that led to additions for bogus purchases and unexplained cash. The ITAT confirmed the entire reassessment was void because the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under S 143(2), affirming the deletion of all additions.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of third party statement substantiated with tangible material is justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) with liberty to assessee to place supporting documents explaining source of cash deposits.
ITAT quashes an income tax addition for cash deposits, ruling that a detailed documentary trail explaining the source for visa purposes cannot be dismissed solely by a third party’s denial.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a ₹5.10 crore addition made under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetisation, holding that once sales are recorded, audited, and taxed, further additions based on suspicion or third-party denials are unjustified.
In a search assessment dispute, the ITAT Delhi struck down an addition of cash payments, concluding that the diary entries used as evidence were rough, unsigned jottings with no established link to the taxpayer’s finances beyond speculation. The entire addition was deleted as the diary lacked legal evidentiary value.
