Income Tax : The ruling clarifies that unauthenticated digital chats and screenshots cannot form the sole basis of tax additions without proper...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : Section 270A penalties must specify the exact misreporting clause. Vague notices invalidate penalties and can restore immunity und...
Income Tax : Understand the three core processes of Indian Income Tax: Rectification of mistakes (Sec 154), the four types of Assessment (Summa...
Income Tax : Understand your legal rights and procedural protections during Income Tax and PMLA raids in India. Learn what to do and what to a...
CA, CS, CMA : Legal opinion sought by NFRA on auditing standards, penalties, and regulatory roles in India. Analysis of NFRA’s powers under th...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Goods and Services Tax : The Ministry of Finance reports the arrest of a firm's finance head for GST evasion worth Rs 88 crore. Learn about the case and it...
Income Tax : The Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT) has directed re-opening of all cases under the search and seizure label, income-escapin...
Income Tax : The case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid bus...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assump...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that loan repayment cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The addition was deleted as i...
Income Tax : Reassessment proceedings was invalid for a notice issued beyond three years without the sanction of the prescribed higher authorit...
Income Tax : Read the order issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Ministry of Finance, specifying the scope of the e-Appeals Sche...
Income Tax : Dispute arose between the Department and the assessees with regard to adjustment of such seized/requisitioned cash against advance...
Allahabad High Court held that the scope of decision u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act is limited to the existence or otherwise of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The same would otherwise remain subject to reassessment order passed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Calcutta High Court held that show cause notice not specifying the charge against the assessee is bad-in-law. Accordingly, initiation of the penalty proceedings is vitiated.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unaccounted cash receipts on the basis of seized documents i.e. rough notes duly supported with corroborative evidence sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in as much as identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction duly proved by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that addition made by the A.O. in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search operation conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition of advances received by the company as deemed dividend in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as advances are received from the concerns purely as business transaction.
A detailed analysis of the ITAT Amritsar’s decision declaring an assessment order void ab initio due to the wrong section of jurisdiction being cited. An insight into the Indian tax law nuances and key takeaways from the case.
Held that in the absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings, the additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act are without jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment untenable as source of investment made by the appellant stands sufficiently explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount under the head ‘capital gain’ not taxable as there is no transfer of any right, title, or interest in the property.
