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 Hyderabad sets aside CIT(A) order, granting Aryavysya Seva Sangham another opportunity to present evidence on unexplained cash deposits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 69A towards unexplained money [on-money transaction] simply on the basis of presumptions without any concrete evidence is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69A deleted as it lacks a valid basis.
ITAT Pune held that application of cash received from unrecorded cash sales needs verification since assessee claims that it is applied for giving advance to the farmers for purchase of raw material and also for expansion of the existing showroom.
ITAT Surat admits new evidence in Takhatsinh F. Dodia’s case, remanding a Rs. 17 lakh unsecured loan issue to the Assessing Officer for reassessment.
Chhattisgarh High Court sets aside tax orders in B.L. Agrawal case, citing failure to consider key evidence on alleged black money conversion.
Since the business sales were accepted as genuine and only the purchases were routed through accommodation entries, only a part of the purchases needed adjustment to reflect possible inflation of expenses confirming the restriction of bogus purchase addition to 5% and when additions were made on an estimated basis, penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
ITAT Panaji remands case of Salim Ali Darugar vs. ITO concerning addition under Section 69A for unexplained demonetization cash deposits.
Tribunal also took note of the fact that AO had merely reproduced identical reasons for multiple years without verifying facts or forming a belief based on individual year-specific material.
ITAT Kolkata held that reopening of assessment is invalid since reasons recorded are vague and scanty and PCIT has granted approval in mechanical manner. Accordingly, reopening of assessment is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is void-ab-initio since income escaped assessment doesn’t exceed Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Accordingly, assessment order passed by AO is quashed.
