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 ITAT Ahmedabad held that isolated WhatsApp messages and electronic communications cannot, by themselves, support additions in ...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act could not be imposed when foreign assets were subsequentl...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad Bench emphasized that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely because an addition survives appellat...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that Section 263 cannot be invoked where the assessee never claimed the alleged expenditure as a deduction. With...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that proportionate interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be sustained when the assessee has ade...
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...
ITAT Delhi affirms penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act against Amandeep Singh Sran for concealing income. Analysis of the case and its implications.
Bombay High Court held that taking recourse to the provisions of Section 166A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of the Letter of Rogatory by the Magistrate without following procedure prescribed under section 155(2) cannot be sustained and deserved to be quashed.
Supreme Court held that enhancing the price of imported goods by invoking rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules without any evidence is unjustified and bad-in-law.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act merely based on statement of the key person which was retracted subsequently unsustainable as genuineness, identity and creditworthiness proved.
ITAT Mumbai held that entire assessment order passed in the case of non-existing entity is null and void and hence is liable to be quashed.
In a significant decision, ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of D.C. Polyester Ltd., stating that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed for incorrect income head treatment.
Analysis of ACIT Vs Karsan Bhai Khimabhai Patel case where AO’s lack of independent inquiry invalidated unexplained investment addition. Learn more about ruling.
ITAT Delhi held that the additions/disallowance, devoid of any incriminating material found during the course of search, cannot validate the assessment orders framed u/s 153C of the Act. Accordingly, assessment orders u/s 153C cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as assessee has filed necessary evidence to explain nature and source for cash deposits.
ITAT Chennai held that Once, nature of expenditure and source is explained, then the question of making additions towards refund money as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act does not arise.
