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 Bangalore deleted a Rs.34.50 lakh addition u/s 69A, accepting the exporter’s explanation that cash deposits during demonetization were genuine customer advances for flowers, which were fully disclosed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, ruled against the revenue’s additions of unaccounted capitation fees and cash loan interest under Sections 69A and 69C against the Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust.
ITAT Rajkot deletes Rs.2.5 lakh cash addition made during demonetization, ruling that the amount was within the non-taxable limit specified by the CBDT for small deposits.
Mere act of depositing cash into a bank account, even during demonetization, was not conclusive proof of unexplained income under Section 69A especially for a business operating under a presumptive tax scheme.
Pune ITAT upholds ₹35.92 lakh penalty u/s 270A for misreporting income by a Diagnostic Centre proprietor. Admission of unaccounted cash receipts only after tax survey detection was not considered voluntary disclosure.
Bangalore ITAT in Suthakar Selvaraj vs. ITO deletes unexplained cash addition for a salaried employee, ruling that mere presumptions about cash withdrawal and re-deposit habits cannot be a basis for addition under the Income-tax Act when bank statements show sufficient withdrawals.
Bangalore ITAT restored a case involving Rs.1.49 crore in unexplained cash deposits for fresh assessment, directing the AO to re-examine the source and the CIT(A)’s application of the peak credit method.
Chennai ITAT deleted a Rs.12.36 lakh cash deposit addition under Section 69A for a retired government employee, acknowledging retirement benefits and customary household savings as sufficient sources.
ITAT Kolkata deleted the ₹1.31 lakh unexplained cash addition during demonetisation, ruling the deposit was reasonably sourced from the assessee’s disclosed rental income received in cash.
ITAT Ranchi deleted a ₹10.42 lakh addition on cash deposits during demonetization, holding they were explained from prior bank withdrawals.
