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...
This article analyzes how Section 153’s time limit prevails over Section 144C’s assessment time limit, based on the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs ACIT in Bombay High Court.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Anuj Sood in a case involving jewellery gifted during marriage, prior to a tax search action. Discover details and implications of the ruling.
ITAT Jaipur held that imposition of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as income does not fall in the category of undisclosed income.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment liable to be quashed as PCIT simply rubber-stamped the attempt of AO to reopen the assessment without inquiring about various basic issues involved in the matter like applicability of section 50C, cost of acquisition and claim of deduction u/s 54EC.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax beyond six Assessment Year immediately preceding the Assessment year from the date of recording of satisfaction note/ handling over of relevant material is not in accordance with law.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court granted refund to the petitioner along with Interest from year 1988 for the cash which was seized without any corroboration and the said cash was also duly reflected in Income Tax Returns.
Analysis of the recent ITAT ruling on Pawan Satyanarain Jalan Vs Assessing Officer Central where the penalty under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that presumption u/s. 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act is only against the person in whose possession the search material is found and not against any other person. Addition based on dumb documents without corroborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Chennai held that rejection of special audit report of the special auditor appointed in terms of section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act on flimsy grounds without any finding as to how observation of the special auditor is incorrect.
