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...
The Tribunal ruled that bank deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income when linked to regular business activity. It upheld that consistent past records supported the assessee’s claim of business receipts.
The Tribunal held that mere classification of shares as penny stock is insufficient to deny LTCG exemption. In absence of evidence linking the assessee to manipulation, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
The case addressed whether agricultural income claims can be rejected due to lack of initial evidence. ITAT held that substantial supporting documents cannot be ignored and remanded the matter for fresh verification. The ruling emphasizes fair consideration of evidence.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was obtained from the wrong authority. Notice under Section 148 held invalid, making entire proceedings void ab initio.
Despite delay and repeated non-appearance, the Tribunal remanded the matter with a ₹10,000 cost. The ruling balances taxpayer conduct with the need for fair adjudication.
The Tribunal held that addition of entire cash deposits without proper verification was not justified. The matter was remanded for fresh examination with an opportunity to substantiate business transactions.
Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liability on taxpayers to justify the nature and source of funds.
The issue was whether disclosed investments could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that Section 69 cannot be invoked when investments are recorded and taxed, upholding deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that additions based on presumptions without evidence cannot be sustained fully. It reduced the addition on unexplained cash deposits from 10% to 5%, granting relief to the assessee.
The case involved unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal upheld addition for unexplained shortage but deleted addition where advances were supported by evidence.
