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...
AO observed that Wealth Tax Act was already abolished from financial year 2015-16, and the details of the assets were now required to be filed in the Income-tax Return for the assessment year.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance and procedural delay. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) set aside and matter remitted back to CIT(A).
It was felt that the minute details of matching of accounts, working out the exact quantum of turnover from the bank accounts and matching of vouchers with expenses claimed could not be done by this Bench of ITAT.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 for non-compliance before CIT(A) and held that the assessee can’t simply escape by placing the blame on the Tax Consultant. Thus, matter restored back to the file of AO.
The assessment order was framed in which the AO made certain additions in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,05,00,477/- as unexplained income of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 towards amount received as gift from son not justified since addition is made in a baseless manner, solely relying on unverified newspaper reports. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
As the assessee had not submitted his explanation with respect to cash deposit made by him during the demonetization period, the same was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
ITAT Agra held that dismissal of appeal as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax unjustified since entre addition made by AO was challenged and there was no other income which is above threshold limit of being taxable.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned the delay of 611 days in filing of an appeal considering the fact that the assessee is a layperson with limited familiarity with the intricacies of the e-portal system.
During the assessment proceedings, AO provided many opportunities to the Assessee to explain the nature and source of deposits made during the demonization period, however, the Assessee did not gave any satisfactory explanation during the assessment proceedings.
