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 under Section 69A could not be sustained without concrete evidence and due process and AO had not brought any tangible evidence to prove the alleged cash loan.
Aggrieved against the directions of CIT(A) to the AO for assessment of gross profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.
To ensure fairness, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. This decision was made contingent upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000 to the Income Tax Department within one month and providing proof of payment.
ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing the AO an opportunity under Rule 46A(3) to examine the new evidence submitted by the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable as assessment made by AO after proper verification of evidences. Further, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Bengaluru partly allows assessee’s appeals for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13, deleting addition under section 69A for recorded loan repayments.
ITAT concluded that merely a time gap between withdrawal and deposit does not warrant an addition under Section 69, especially when the revenue could not establish any other use of the withdrawn funds.
ITAT Jodhpur partly allows appeal in Kishana Ram vs ITO, upholding additions related to capital discrepancies and agricultural income under Section 143(3).
ITAT Jaipur sets aside addition and penalty against Mukesh Kumar Agarwal due to lack of valid jurisdiction and time-barred penalty order.
ITAT Chennai confirms addition of ₹16.20 lakh under Section 69A for demonetized cash deposited by trader; notice deemed valid and appeal dismissed.
