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 rules against taxing SBNs as unexplained cash when deposits are linked to legitimate business sales, preventing double taxation.
The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled in favor of Suraj Somaru Varma, a Business Correspondent agent, deleting an addition of ₹9.16 lakh made under Section 69A. The Tribunal held that the demonetized currency deposits were not unexplained income but part of normal business operations, as Varma was authorized by RBI and maintained proper records.
Disallowance of ₹28,99,56,987/- towards finance costs on securitization transactions had no basis, as the interest income rightly belonged to the SPVs and not the assessee. Likewise, the addition of ₹1,61,82,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE was unjustified since the cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes represented genuine loan repayments from microfinance borrowers and could not be treated as unexplained.
ITAT Delhi held that applicability of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act without initially fixing the addition under any of the charging provisions i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes ₹33 lakh addition under Section 115BBE, ruling that cash seized and declared as business income should be taxed at normal rates, not as unexplained income.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposit during demonetization not justified since assessee has sufficiently explained that the said deposit is from earlier withdrawal. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Notice issued by a non-jurisdictional AO was invalid rendering the addition under Section 69A void ab initio. It directly impacted the validity of the assessment under Section 69A, leading to the complete annulment of the additions.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that cash deposits made during demonetisation cannot be singled out and must be treated as business income, allowing an assessee’s appeal and deleting a Rs.26.57 lakh addition.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has set aside a CIT(A) order that deleted a Rs. 99.5 lakh cash deposit addition, citing a procedural error for not obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Pune held that ex-parte order sustaining addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act on account of non-compliance on the part of the assessee not justified since relevant notice and order were served to old e-mail of the assessee. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of AO.
