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...
Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of 71.12 lakh, holding that the assessee sufficiently explained the cash deposits by correlating them with prior cash withdrawals recorded in the books. The ruling emphasizes that S. 69A (unexplained money) cannot be invoked when the source of deposits is traced to funds from bank accounts already part of the regular books.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits during demonetisation, sourced from verifiable housing loan withdrawals, were explained and not unexplained income. Following the P&H HC, the ITAT held that the retention of cash for construction, even for a long time, doesnt justify the addition when the source is proven.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by rejecting the explanation (withdrawal via bearer cheque) simply because the assessee had not used that method before. The ruling emphasized that the Department cannot reject a proven source unless it brings contrary evidence of an alternate undisclosed source.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, confirming that suspicion alone cannot lead to an addition under section 69A, especially when sales records and VAT returns were furnished. The ruling confirmed that high cash sales were justified as per the Government’s notification allowing petrol pumps to accept demonetised notes.
The ITAT set aside a Section 69A addition for unexplained cash payments, ruling that the AO must first verify the facts. The case was remanded because the assessee claimed an original allottee made the payment but failed to provide the plot’s transfer agreement as proof.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside an order that attempted to rectify an assessment to tax a survey disclosure under Section 69A/115BBE instead of normal business income. The Tribunal ruled that the question of classifying the already accounted income as business receipts versus unexplained money is a debatable issue that falls outside the limited scope of rectification under Section 154.
The ITAT Agra set aside the NFAC’s order confirming a Rs. 22,01,000/− cash deposit addition, citing the NFAC’s failure to follow earlier verification directions and admitting new legal grounds under the NTPC principle.
The ITAT Raipur condoned a 93-day delay citing the medical student’s hectic schedule and remanded the Rs. 11,82,000/− unexplained cash deposit addition under Section 69A to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing.
In the case of Shobha Welfare Society Vs ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, partly allowed an appeal, challenging a Rs. 64,98,470 addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Tribunal confirms that notices under section 148 post-March 2022 must be issued by Faceless Assessing Officers, rendering JAO-issued notices void.
