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 Mumbai rules cash deposits in SBNs during demonetization, with explained sources, cannot be treated as unexplained income, citing judicial precedents.
ITAT Amritsar held that addition on protective basis in the hands of assessee not justified as bank account is fraudulently opened in his name without the assessee’s knowledge. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and addition directed to be deleted.
Ahmedabad ITAT rules in favor of Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker, deleting cash addition, stating previous bank withdrawals can be source of later deposits if not utilized elsewhere.
Delhi ITAT deletes Section 69A cash additions against senior citizens Nand Kumar Taneja and Nita Taneja, citing disclosed income and recorded cash-in-hand.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands Ratansinh Solanki’s case, setting aside Section 69A additions. Fresh adjudication ordered, allowing admission of additional evidence for cash deposits.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of statement which was subsequently retracted is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposited during demonetization cannot be sustained as source of cash deposited is cash sales and the same is already offered to tax. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and addition is deleted.
ITAT Jaipur held that seized cash belongs to the firm and not of the assessee alone and hence invoking provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act in the hands of assessee misconceived. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Surat rules cash in real estate business isn’t automatically unexplained for demonetization deposits. Reduces ₹7.54L addition, cites Supreme Court on cash balances.
ITAT Mumbai quashes ₹5.39 crore income addition by AO, stating calculations based on two days’ bills were illogical for tax proceedings. Sales were already recorded by a successor firm.
