Income Tax : From April 2025, updates to Sections 132 & 132B will streamline search and seizure processes, extending approval timelines and upd...
Income Tax : Understand the process of search & seizure under the Income Tax Act, including taxpayer rights, obligations, and key legal precede...
Income Tax : Explore the re-introduction of block assessments in search cases under the Income Tax Act effective from 01 September 2024. Learn ...
Income Tax : Discover the updated Income Tax assessment procedures for searches starting from September 2024, including tax rates, penalties, a...
Income Tax : Explore Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, detailing search and seizure powers, authorizations, examinations, and rules for a tran...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : In-depth analysis of the Income Tax Department crackdown in Chhattisgarh, uncovering a Rs. 13 crore scam involving a PEP, associat...
Income Tax : Ministry of Finance reveals Income Tax Department's massive search operation exposing a major tax evasion scheme in Mumbai's elect...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department's recent searches reveal tax evasion schemes by contractors, leading to unaccounted cash and asset creation....
Income Tax : Recent Income Tax search operation in Kashmir Valley exposes a prominent business group's substantial tax evasion in sectors inclu...
Income Tax : Rupesh Kantilal Savla Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) - Power to assess block period of ten years could not be attracted in case of a Income...
Income Tax : Explore Section 153A of Income Tax Act, its implications, and judicial interpretations. Learn about search proceedings, panchnama,...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court dismisses the Income Tax Departments appeal against Meera Gupta for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2013-14, ...
Income Tax : In respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made in absence of any incriminating material found during search...
Income Tax : Madras HC declares search at Anil Jain's residence and office illegal. Jurisdictional issues raised. Reference to Section 120 and ...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department carried out searches on 14.12.2020 in a group case from Erode in Tamil Nadu, covering 15 premises at Ero...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department carried out search and seizure operations on 13.12.2020 in the case of a Chandigarh based listed pharmac...
Income Tax : The related concerns of the assessee group are involved in financing, money lending and real estate development. The unaccounted t...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department has carried out searches at 5 locations in Chennai and Madurai on 4.11.2020 in the case of a Chennai bas...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department has carried out search and seizure operations on 05.11.2020 in the case of a well-known self-styled evan...
In the result, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest @ 12% in respect of the amount of Rs. 6,33,800/- for the period from 27.12.2006 to 24.05.2011 and a writ of mandamus directing the payment of the interest is accordingly issued. The respondent shall pay the interest within a period of six weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Search operation was carried out in one M/s. G.B. & Company under section 132. Though the premises of the assessee were also searched during search operations, the same were in the capacity of an employee of the said company and not in individual capacity.
In the present case, admittedly there is no past demand which has remained unpaid. Therefore only when the Assessee files a return of income quantifying his total income for the assessment years in question can it be said that there has arisen tax liability for the relevant AYs. The due date for filing return of income or the fact that advance tax was due on a particular date will not make the liability of the Assessee an “existing tax liability” on those dates. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. R.V. Raibagy & Co. & others ITR Case Nos. 4 to 10 of 2003 dated 29.3.2005 has also taken the view that adjustment of seized cash against tax due u/s.140A of the Act, on income declared in a return of income filed should be allowed.
Obviously therefore, the Assessing Officer of the searched person during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, could not have arrived at the satisfaction that the income was that of the present assessee and not the persons originally searched.
The search operation was carried out at the residence as well as business premises of Shri Yakub A. Colddrink where from the books of account of the firm as per Annexure A/11 & A/12 and loose paper as per Annexure-3 were found and seized. As per Section 153C, the books of account belonging to the other person is required to be found and seized at the premises of the search took place where assessment u/s. 153A has been made i.e. searched party.
The brief facts leading to above issue are that assessee incurred undisclosed expenditure for furniture, fixture, flooring etc. incurred in respect of Flat No. 501, at 20 Lee Road, Kolkata for asst. yr. 2008-09. The said expenditure was found recorded in RM-1 and RM-2. The expenditure of Rs. 35 lakhs was incurred by the assessee in connection with purchase of furniture of director’s flat at 20 Lee Road on behalf of M/s Fort Projects (P) Ltd. It is pertinent to note that no such addition of Rs. 35 lakhs on account of undisclosed expenditure was made by AO in very first place and this will be clear from perusal of assessment order for asst. yr. 2008-09,
In the present case, we notice that that petitioners belonged to the same family or group. They were subjected to common search operation. Their assessments were therefore, under proposal for transfer. A show cause notice was issued to all of them in which the Commissioner called upon them to explain why the cases should not be centralised at Ahmedabad for effective and coordinated investigation. After considering their objections and permitting the oral submissions by the authorised representative, the Commissioner passed the order transferring the cases on the ground that cases were required to be centralised. Since Bhavnagar did not have Central Range Office, they could be transferred at Ahmedabad. Their request that cases be consolidated at Bhavnagar or Mumbai was considered but not accepted. They were instead offered alternative places for transfer of cases within the jurisdiction of Surat, Baroda or Rajkot Office. They did not accept the offer. It was thereupon that the Commissioner proceeded to finalise his proposed transfer of cases from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad.
The petitioners required vacant possession of the land to be able to pass on the title and vacant possession. To be able to do so, the petitioners entered into agreements with the tenants. Such documents thus are documents which definitely belong to the petitioners. Simply because on subsequent date, the land was sold, may have a bearing on the title of such land, the same would not in any manner alter the nature of the document concerned.
Whether the material obtained during search showing a variation in expenditure may be considered as evidence for disallowance of expenditure for a block period u/s 158BB of the Act and would not amount to assessment on estimation basis?
On perusal of the provisions laid down under section 153C, it is apparent that after issuance of notice under section 153C, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person (against which incriminating material has been found during the course of search conducted on a person) assess or re-assess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A.
