Topic
Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, empowers Indian authorities to intercept, monitor, or decrypt digital information for national security or public order, subject to procedural safeguards under the law.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that tax authorities cannot impute unexplained investments on a homemaker-donee merely because the donor's source of funds is unverified. The tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the revenue to establish undisclosed income directly attributable to the assessee, not merely through familial transactions.
ITAT Delhi rules that gold jewellery owned by a married daughter residing abroad, supported by an affidavit, cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69 merely on presumptive grounds. The ruling emphasizes that CBDT guidelines on permissible jewellery limits do not override documented ownership, reinforcing natural justice in tax assessments.
ITAT Mumbai rules that additions under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act for unexplained investments require substantive evidence beyond third-party statements or Excel data from search proceedings. The assessee must be afforded an opportunity for cross-examination to uphold natural justice principles, invalidating additions made without such corroboration.
ITAT Dehradun rules that State Public Works Department rates must replace Central PWD rates for property valuation under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, and a 15% self-supervision deduction is compulsory. The ruling eliminates additions for negligible variances, impacting tax assessments for construction costs across states.
ITAT Bangalore rules that where an assessee discloses bitcoin investments and corresponding capital losses in tax returns, additions under Section 69 for 'unexplained investments' cannot stand. The ruling underscores that mere non-declaration of capital gains-without concealment of the investment source-does not constitute unaccounted income, offering relief to crypto traders facing reassessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that unexplained cash deposits under Section 69 IT Act cannot be taxed in full without evidence linking the assessee to beneficial ownership. The tribunal directed reassessment based on peak balance and permissible commission income, narrowing the scope of tax additions for accommodation entries.
ITAT Mumbai rules that consultancy receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69 without evidence of illegality. Only expenses proven unverifiable-not the entire amount-are disallowed, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary additions.