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...
Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 69A towards cash deposits during demonetization deleted since cash deposit was made out of earlier withdrawals. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that when the cash is sourced out of recorded sales, the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked since sales have already been offered to tax and taxing same again u/s. 69A would amount to double taxation.
ITAT Pune held that once primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment fails then AO doesn’t possess jurisdiction to tax any other income in reassessment order. Hence, re-assessment is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside in as much as the source of cash deposits duly explained. Accordingly, appeal restored to AO with direction to re-adjudicate the issue.
ITAT Bangalore remands case concerning cash deposits during demonetization, directing the AO to re-assess the addition u/s 69A after considering CBDT circulars and granting the assessee a fair hearing.
ITAT Ahmedabad condones a 340-day delay in an appeal on unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A and remands the case for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Raipur held that order of transfer of case under section 127 of the Income Tax Act without granting opportunity of being heard to appellant is bad-in-law. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of CIT(A).
In the matter abovementioned ITAT allowed appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose by way of remand after considering that assessee was unable to submit details before CIT (A) due to unfortunate accident of CA.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 68 or 69A of the Income Tax Act for cash deposit during demonetization period unjustified since source of cash deposits duly explained. Hence, addition liable to be deleted.
