Income Tax : The framework clarifies that search operations can be initiated only when authorities have credible information and recorded reaso...
Income Tax : The Court held that search action under tax law requires concrete material and cannot be based on assumptions. Lack of valid “re...
Goods and Services Tax : Learn about legal requirement of reasons to believe for GST search and seizure. Article discusses judicial precedents and procedur...
Income Tax : Learn the step-by-step procedure followed by Income Tax authorities during search and seizure operations, including legal safeguar...
Income Tax : This case study examines if a company can claim interest on assets and money seized by the Income Tax Department after an assessme...
Income Tax : CBDT’s 2025 Search & Seizure Manual guides tax officers on lawful, tech-driven investigations under Sections 132–132B of the I...
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 : The issue was whether a search-based assessment could be completed within 12 months after a Supreme Court ruling. The Court held t...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT quashes ₹11 crore in tax additions, ruling that additions in a search case cannot be made without finding incriminati...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in Laljibhai Mandalia case upholds tax search, clarifies reasons to believe and limits judicial review over the suff...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held survey statements cannot solely justify income addition without corroborative evidence. Case: DCIT Vs Ahinsa Infr...
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 : CBDT introduces ITR-B for search and seizure cases under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, effective from 1st September 2024....
Goods and Services Tax : Specific instances have come to the notice of the Board and Central Vigilance Commission wherein proper procedures have apparently...
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...
THE facts of the case are on a Search & seizure operations carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 18-3-02 notice u/s 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961, served on the assessee it was alleged that the assessee that a sum of Rs.54,45,000/ – which was received by the assessee from its sister concern M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, as application money was nothing but the assessee company’s own money which was brought into the books in the garb of application money and the whole transaction was managed, sham and was a deliberate arrangement to subvert the interest of revenue.
Principles for reckoning of limitation period for completion of block assessment under provisions of S 158 BE- conclusive proof is required to show that seized documents disclose concealment of any income but assessee and not disclosed – ITAT
Warrant of authorisation issued by Addl Director without proper authority – entire search and assessment consequent to such invalid search is bad in law and annulled -ITAT. The warrant of authorization issued in the present case by the Addl. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) has therefore to be held without proper authority and the entire search as well as the assessment proceedings consequent to such invalid search has to be held bad in law and annulled.
IT all started with search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of Friends Portfolio. In the course of the search, statements of Shri Manoj Agarwal and other persons were recorded and thereafter assessment was completed in their cases. It was found that all the transactions undertaken by Shri Manoj Agarwal through Friends Portfolio and his other concerns were bogus transactions, in the nature of merely providing entries without any real physical transactions relatable to those entries. Such entries were taken by a number of persons, namely, S/Shri C.P. Khanna, Puneet Khanna, Rajiv Aggarwal, Dhanraj Singh, Harjoot Singh, M/s Ramco Steel (P) Ltd. etc. The last named company filed petition to the Settlement Commission for settlement of its case in respect of entries taken from Shri Manoj Agarwal. In the statement Shri Manoj Agarwal admitted that all the entries given by him through Friends Portfolio and his other companies were in the nature of accommodation entries, which could be grouped into six categories as under:-
As no notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) in the present case as admitted by the AO himself in the remand report submitted to the learned CIT(A) as clearly mentioned by the learned CIT(A) in paragraph No. 17 on page 12 of his impugned order, the assessment order passed by him u/s 158BC suffered from a jurisdictional error and the same, therefore, was not valid in the eye of law.
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in CIT vs. Shri. C. Najeeb regarding penalty on income determined under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. Discover key questions of law, such as whether the Tribunal’s decision to levy income tax on 15% of total receipts is correct. Dive into the intricacies of assessment and penalty proceedings, including insights on undisclosed income, civil liability, and the interpretation of Section 158BFA. Uncover the court’s findings, providing clarity on the computation of undisclosed income and the imposition of penalties in this significant tax case.
