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 issue involved addition under Section 69A for demonetization cash deposits. The Tribunal held that once sale consideration was accepted as source, the addition could not be sustained.
The issue involved treating cash deposits as unexplained despite being part of recorded sales. The Tribunal held that taxing the same income again results in impermissible double taxation.
The issue was addition of cash deposits during demonetisation as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that the assessee’s explanation supported by affidavit was credible, leading to deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether full bank deposits of a commission agent can be taxed as unexplained income. The ruling held only commission income taxable, with 8% estimation upheld as reasonable.
The Tribunal examined whether demonetisation cash deposits linked to recorded business sales could be taxed as unexplained income. It ruled that once the source is established through books, addition under Section 68 is unsustainable.
ITAT held that reassessment initiated with approval from the wrong authority is invalid when issued beyond three years. The entire proceedings were quashed. The key takeaway is that proper sanction under Section 151 is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that updated returns filed during ongoing assessment proceedings are not valid under Section 139(8A). The key takeaway is that taxpayers cannot correct returns once scrutiny has begun, though limited relief may still be granted.
The ITAT held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers when the same issue is already pending before the appellate authority. The case involved share transaction additions treated as penny stock.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits during demonetization. Mere disclosure in books was insufficient without proof of genuineness and credibility.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals after the assessee failed to appear despite multiple notices. Lack of participation led to confirmation of additions made by tax authorities.
