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...
The ITAT Bangalore held that where incriminating documents relating to an assessee are found during a search conducted on another person, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C and not under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that exclusion of time for transfer of seized material applies only within the running limitation period. As the assessment was passed beyond the recalculated deadline, it was quashed as barred by limitation.
The alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A) as it was based solely on digital data found from a third party. It reiterated that suspicion or extrapolation without direct evidence cannot sustain tax additions.
ITAT clarified that a statement recorded during search does not automatically become incriminating material. Without supporting documentary evidence, additions under Section 69A cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that accumulated savings and customary cash gifts over 40 years of marital life were a plausible explanation for seized cash. It deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).
ITAT deleted the addition made under Section 153C as no incriminating material directly linked the buyer to alleged cash payments. Reliance solely on third-party pen drive data and statements was held insufficient.
The Tribunal emphasized that without physical goods, exports and stock reconciliation would not be possible. Since quantitative records and gross profit remained consistent, the addition under Section 69C was deleted.
Penalty imposed under Section 271AAA was set aside, holding that only the Assessing Officer is empowered to levy such penalty. The Tribunal further ruled that once quantum addition is deleted, penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains could not be treated as bogus where documentary evidence supported the transactions and no material connected the assessee to price manipulation. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
