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 Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limita...
Income Tax : The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, holding that allegation...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be revised under Section 263 since the conditions for treating jewellery e...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that the search authorisation under Section 132 was invalid because the satisfaction note lacked releva...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Rs.6 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the share sale transactions were prope...
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...
There was no search carried out on the appellant. The seized papers were found in the possession of Shri Vikas A. Shah. The third person evidence cannot be base for addition on the basis of any entries therein.
Application of seized assets under section 132B The existing provisions contained in section 132B of the Income-tax Act, inter alia, provide that seized assets may be adjusted against any existing liability under the Income-tax Act, Wealth-tax Act, the Expenditure-tax Act, the Gift-tax Act and the Interest-tax Act and the amount of liability determined on completion […]
Statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is evidence but its reliability depends upon the facts of the case and particularly surrounding circumstances. Drawing inference from the facts is a question of law. Here in this case, all the authorities below have merely reached to the conclusion of one conclusion merely on the basis of assumption resulting into fastening of the liability upon the assessee.
Applying the ratio of the judgment in Chandra Prakash Agrawal (supra) to the present case, we find that the Tribunal did not commit any error in recording findings that since nothing was found in the search operations on 26.10.1995 and that though the warrant of authorisation under section 132A was issued on the following day on 27.10.1995,
In the present case, the revenue authorities, sought to apply the statutory presumptions, as contemplated under section 132(4A) to the facts of the present case, without establishing the factum that the assessee was found in possession or control of any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing etc. In this specific context, it is inconceivable and incomprehensible, as to how the provisions of section 132(4A) are applicable to the facts of the case, without showing satisfaction of the statutory conditions precedent contained therein.
Section 132(1)(iii) empowers the authorized officer to seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found as a result of such search which represent either wholly or partly undisclosed income or property of the person. However, the proviso carves out an exception.
The case of the assessee is that the statement/admission was made under the mistaken belief of law that Rs. 50 lakhs represents the sale value of stock found short was undisclosed income of the assessee instead of the correct legal position that the gross profit on suppressed sale is the income of the assessee.
Under the existing provisions of section 132 and section 132A, an authorisation can be issued or a requisition can be made, as the case may be, where the Director General or the Director in consequence of information in his possession has reason to believe that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter referred to as undisclosed income or property), then, he may authorise any Additional Director or Deputy Director, etc. to enter and search any building, place, vehicle, etc. and seize any such books of accounts, other documents, undisclosed property, etc.
Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGIT (Investigation)- Bombay HC – The mode and manner in which all these notes are prepared, show the absence of any relevant material with authorities which would have enabled them to have ‘a reason to believe’ that action under Section 132(1) of the Act was essential. No new material as such has been disclosed anywhere. No document or report of alleged discreet inquiry forms part of these notes.
Shri Ram S Sarda Vs DCIT (ITAT Rajkot)- ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhakar M Shetty vs ACIT held that the department has to adjust the seized amount towards the advance-tax from the date when it was seized and accordingly directed the assessing officer to adjust the seized cash from the date of seizure. In the case under consideration we find that the assessee claimed adjustment of seized cash in the return of income filed by the assessee.
