Section 194IA of the Income Tax Act mandates buyers to deduct 1% TDS on property transfers exceeding ₹50 lakh. The 2025 amendment includes incidental charges and considers the total value in joint ownership for TDS applicability.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices and orders for AY 2019-20, ruling they were issued without proper jurisdiction and violated the framework of Section 151A. This decision voids the proceedings due to a jurisdictional defect, granting the Revenue liberty to revive the case only after the Supreme Court’s final decision.
ITAT Lucknow set aside a PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling it was void due to a violation of natural justice. The PCIT used external adverse material (alleging shell company purchases) against the assessee without providing a chance for rebuttal or considering evidence already filed, making the order invalid.
Karnataka High Court set aside reassessment proceedings for AY 2020-21, ruling the jurisdictional Assessing Officer acted beyond the scope of Section 151A (Faceless Assessment). The decision reinforces that reassessment notices must strictly follow the procedural mandate of the faceless regime, though the Revenue retains the liberty to revive the case if the Supreme Court validates the procedure.
Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed PMLA appeals filed after 5270 days, ruling that excessive delay and lack of vigilance by the appellants made the appeals legally untenable.
Appellate Tribunal dismissed FEMA proceedings after the ED could not provide authenticated HSBC Geneva bank statements. The ruling emphasizes that unverified evidence cannot support prosecution.
The tribunal ruled that commissions earned through LIC policies linked to a scheduled offence were rightly treated as proceeds of crime, justifying provisional attachment of property.
The ITAT Pune quashed reassessment proceedings, ruling them void ab initio because the requisite approval under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT). This failure to follow the mandatory jurisdictional hierarchy for notices issued after three years vitiated the entire reopening.
ITAT Delhi partly allowed assessee’s appeal, reducing unexplained income from ₹10.08 crore to ₹2.22 crore and lowering commission on inter-mediated transactions from 3% to a fair 1%, emphasizing verification of cash and cheque entries under same code.
ITAT Amritsar condoned the 146-day delay in a senior citizen’s appeal, accepting passport evidence of her absence from India as sufficient cause, and remanded the case for fresh assessment.
