Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
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 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 : Gujarat HC quashed a Section 148 notice, holding that a seized inquiry register without a live nexus to the assessee cannot justif...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC quashed Section 148 reassessment as it was issued beyond Section 149 limitation, holding Section 152(3) applies to sear...
Income Tax : ITAT held reassessment under Sections 147/148 invalid because it was based on a pre-1 April 2021 third-party search, requiring pro...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed a Section 148 notice issued after the limitation under the first proviso to Section 149, holding the reassessm...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that a penalty notice under Section 271AAB must clearly specify the applicable statutory limb and charge. As t...
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...
The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in construction business which was subject to a search action u/s 132(1) of the Act on 06.10.2009. In the course of search, Shri Rajesh Malpani, partner of the assessee firm in a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 03.12.2009
Section 132 contemplates existence of certain eventualities in the event of existence where of the competent authority should have reason to believe the existence of the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act
A search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 22.11.2006. Assessee is an individual filed the return of income at Rs.5,88,06,735/- on 02.09.2008. This amount included undisclosed investment in jewellery of Rs. 12,85,777/-
Search operation was carried out in one M/s. G.B. & Company under section 132. Though the premises of the assessee were also searched during search operations, the same were in the capacity of an employee of the said company and not in individual capacity.
In the present case, we notice that that petitioners belonged to the same family or group. They were subjected to common search operation. Their assessments were therefore, under proposal for transfer. A show cause notice was issued to all of them in which the Commissioner called upon them to explain why the cases should not be centralised at Ahmedabad for effective and coordinated investigation. After considering their objections and permitting the oral submissions by the authorised representative, the Commissioner passed the order transferring the cases on the ground that cases were required to be centralised. Since Bhavnagar did not have Central Range Office, they could be transferred at Ahmedabad. Their request that cases be consolidated at Bhavnagar or Mumbai was considered but not accepted. They were instead offered alternative places for transfer of cases within the jurisdiction of Surat, Baroda or Rajkot Office. They did not accept the offer. It was thereupon that the Commissioner proceeded to finalise his proposed transfer of cases from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad.
On going through the said record we find that the Additional Director General, in his proceedings/orders dated 15-2-2011 has recorded that on the basis of the various searches conducted at various premises of manufacturers, godowns and dealers of various cigarette manufacturers in the country, different brands of cigarettes which were kept without any duty paying documents were seized. Huge stock of cigarettes of various brands manufactured by the petitioner without any duty paying documents were also found during the searches at Coimbatore etc. and were placed under seizure. In view of seizures of non-duty paid cigarette manufactured by the petitioner, a decision was taken to search the petitioner’s premises immediately to resume incriminating records.
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,
