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 Pune grants partial relief in cash deposit case during demonetization under Section 69A. Dispute centered on unexplained deposits of ₹21.4 lakh.
Surat ITAT partly allows Jayeshbhai Chovatiya’s appeal against unexplained bank credits addition and upholds part of AO’s assessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad quashes ₹4 crore addition against Amitsingh Bhadoriya as AO relied on a bank account not admitted by the taxpayer.
ITAT Raipur held that passing of order by CIT(A) without considering adjournment request of the assessee is not justifiable in law. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards cash deposited during demonization period partly set aside based on CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017. Accordingly, appeal of assessee partly allowed.
ITAT Bangalore allows appeal, deleting addition for demonetization cash deposit, accepting claim of mother’s savings as source. (159 Characters)
ITAT Ahmedabad restores assessment, citing denial of fair opportunity and inadequate evidence review by AO in Sections 69A/69C case. (159 Characters)
ITAT Chennai held that cash sales of liquor is the source of cash deposit during demonetization and accordingly, since the nature and source of investment fully explained by the assessee, addition u/s. 69 of 69A not justifiable.
Patna High Court held that Faceless Assessment Procedure as prescribed under section 144B of the Income Tax Act is duly followed and in course of faceless assessment at every stage approval from competent authorities have been obtained.
There are absolutely no credible and reliable evidences to establish that entire loans in cash were from the undisclosed funds whereas loan in cheques were accepted to be that of person other assessee and his role as a conduit or a mere intermediary was established.
