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...
Additions made on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period and disallowance of loss on the derivative transactions, were remanded for fresh adjudication after the verification of sales records and transaction nature.
An ITAT Delhi ruling has partially allowed appeals by the tax department, reducing significant cash deposit additions and clarifying the applicability of Section 115BBE.
ITAT Bangalore condones a 224-day delay in an unexplained cash deposit case, remitting it to the AO for a fresh assessment with a token penalty.
ITAT Bangalore deletes an unexplained cash addition, ruling that cash deposits during demonetization are not taxable if they are supported by prior bank withdrawals.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were explained as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and household savings, and deleted the addition of ₹10,46,500 made under section 69A.
The Delhi ITAT has ruled that while unexplained demonetization cash deposits are taxable, the 60% rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18.
ITAT Bangalore sets aside tax demand of ₹7.29 crore on a rural co-op society, citing its inability to explain a ₹4.63 crore cash deposit due to a negligent tax practitioner.
Delhi ITAT rules in favor of a retired railway employee, deleting a Rs15.35 lakh addition under section 69A. The court found the cash deposits were explained by prior withdrawals.
Mere involvement in a flagged scrip, in absence of concrete evidence of manipulation or unaccounted funds, could not justify taxing bonafide transactions. Therefore, the additions under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable.
Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)’s view that alleged accommodation loans were not supported by bank statements. Reopening and addition u/s 69A struck down; Revenue’s case dismissed.
