Income Tax : Delhi HC rules in PCIT Vs Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., ITA 579/2018, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in tax assessme...
Income Tax : Understand the concept of Updated Return under the Income-tax Act, its necessity, tax implications, and filing process. Get insigh...
Income Tax : Explore Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, detailing search and seizure powers, authorizations, examinations, and rules for a tran...
Income Tax : Explore the Supreme Courts insights on Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing due process. Learn key takeaways, including...
Income Tax : In cases where a search under section 132 is initiated or a search for which the last of the authorization is executed or requisit...
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 : Delhi High Court dismisses Income Tax Department's appeal in PCIT Vs Satya Prakash Gupta case, finding no evidence of commission r...
Income Tax : Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) had authority to make additions to the declared income of taxpayers as ITSC's role was not...
Income Tax : Section 54 deduction was allowable on cash transactions involving residential property as it was ensured that genuine investments ...
Income Tax : Rajasthan HC rules that using the Insight Portal for reopening income tax assessments under Section 148 is valid. Learn about Chat...
Income Tax : Read the Kerala High Court judgment on income tax assessments involving Sunny Jacob Jewellers. Analysis includes AO's authority un...
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 held that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act based on seized dumb documents found in the premises of third party is unsustainable in law as the seized documents are merely loose sheets not forming part of the books of account of the assessee and that they do not constitute admissible evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment sustained excel sheet and whatsapp chat are incriminating material found and seized during the course of search action.
Allahabad High Court held that delay of three days in depositing the arrears of tax under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 due to unforeseen and extraneous circumstances that were beyond the control of the petitioner is condonable.
Analysis of the ITAT Lucknow case Mahendra Lalka Vs DCIT on Sec 69 of the Income Tax Act. Key findings, implications, and legal insights included.
ITAT Jaipur held that in absence of a valid satisfaction note the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law. Resultantly the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on incriminating material found during the search carried out of ‘some other person’ i.e. third person/ party and assessing the same by invoking provision of section 147 instead of section 153C is unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that in absence of incriminating material as a result of search, no addition can be made in the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act, if such assessments are unabated on the date of search.
CESTAT Chennai held that Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company paying Commission to unapproved dealers in the guise of receipt of ‘data processing and policy servicing and related activities’ service. Accordingly, since such service is not received by the company they are ineligible to avail CENVAT Credit of the same.
ITAT Chennai held that in the present case AO himself referred the matter for special audit u/s 142(2A), however, report of special auditor was later rejected without assigning any reasons for the same is in explicable.
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.
