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...
Assessee challenged CIT(A) order before the Bangalore Bench of ITAT arguing that 1450 grams of gold should not be considered unexplained as it fell within the permissible limits of CBDT Instruction No. 1916.
ITAT Chandigarh held that since notices were issued through ITBA portal only it cannot be treated as a valid service of notice. Accordingly, proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that approval of large number of cases in a single day cannot be reason for faulting reopening of assessment since the case was reopened u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act after due application of mind.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that PCIT has taken divergent view from that of AO without giving the basis for invoking of provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order passed by PCIT u/s. 263 not justifiable.
AO proceeded to finalize the assessment based on available records, as the assessee had still not responded or provided any explanations regarding the unexplained cash deposits. AO added the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 3,13,34,845/- to the total income.
ITAT Bangalore held that granting an opportunity to cross examine essential when addition is made on the basis of 3rd party statements. Non-granting any opportunity of cross examination violates the principle of natural which vitiates the validity of addition.
ITAT Bangalore deleted addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money after examining the cash withdrawn and cash deposit amounts, since cash withdrawn is more than cash deposit.
ITAT Chennai held that cash received under unregistered will accepted as will furnished by the assessee not established as fabricated one by the department and there is no requirement in law to get the will registered.
ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside an order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act after a notice was sent to the wrong address. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
