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...
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.
Jyoti Traders Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai )- In our view the conditions precedent for passing an order u/s.142(2A) of the Act directing the Assessee to get its account audited by a special auditor viz., the satisfaction of the AO having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interest of the revenue, that is necessary get the assessee’s account audited by a special auditor is not fulfilled in the present case and therefore the reference to special audit is held to be invalid.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee has failed to establish that disclosure of additional income in the revised return by way of declaring G. P. rate at 15% as against 6.93% shown in return filed u/s. 153A of the Act was voluntary and in good faith to buy peace with the department. On the other hand, the assessee filed the revised return only after the concealment was detected by the AO and he confronted the assessee with the same. In such circumstances, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Ps.14,61,678/- for concealment of income has rightly been levied by the A.O.
Income Tax – Section 158BD – Whether recording of satisfaction is mandatory before notice u/s 158BD is issued – Whether statement of one of searched parties can have the sactity of ‘books of accounts’. – Revenue’s appeals dismissed
We heard the rival contentions. Before proceeding in this matter, we feel it is better to analyse the decision of Honb’le Madras ITAT decision in the case of Sivabala Devi, supra, as both the assessee and Ld. CIT(A) have placed their reliance on it. In that case, the appellant had furnished certain information regarding — her investments, sources thereof and the na
