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 held that cash gifts received from relatives and friends during wedding cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act merely because each donor is not individually verified. Accordingly, addition directed to be deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted an addition made under sections 69A and 69C, ruling that an addition based solely on loose papers and a third-party statement without corroboration is not valid.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were properly explained and recorded, therefore, addition made under section 69A of ₹17,16,000 and taxed under section 115BBE was not sustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere titular ownership of bank account is not conclusive. Thus, addition u/s. 69A of the Income tax Act towards unexplained cash deposit cannot be sustained without proper inquiry into identity of actual beneficiary of cash deposits.
The Ahmedabad ITAT has deleted additions for unexplained investments and partners’ capital, ruling that the firm had provided sufficient proof of the partners’ creditworthiness.
ITAT Pune held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on account of non-prosecution without deciding the appeal of merit is not justifiable. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) is set-aside to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained stock cannot be sustained merely relying on the statement without any corroborative evidence. Accordingly, addition set aside and appeal allowed.
ITAT Nagpur sends back Ganesh Thawares reassessment appeal, directing CIT(A) to rule on jurisdiction and other issues afresh after a fair hearing
The Delhi ITAT has deleted an addition under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits made during demonetization, finding the assessee’s explanation to be justified.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled on Naliniben Dipakbhai Patel vs ITO, deleting an addition under Section 69A, stating investment source investigation belongs to the actual investor.
