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...
Supreme Court held that any person summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of recording the statements cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent should sought recourse by filing criminal application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act towards share application money unsustainable since they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that deposit of 10% of the penalty shall have no effect on the order of ‘debarment’ passed against the Appellant(s) under Section 132(4)(c). Order of ‘debarment’ shall continue to operate unless an order is passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Explore the ITAT Pune ruling on ACIT vs. Omshree Agrotech. Learn why rejection of books under section 145(3) based on gross profit rates is deemed unjustified.
ITAT Jaipur held that income surrendered during the course of search cannot be said to qualify as an undisclosed income in the context of section 271AAB read with the explanation thereto and hence penalty u/s 271AAB of Income Tax Act not leviable.
ITAT Delhi held that more specific plea and explanation ought to be given by an assessee for discharging burden u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act to explain jewelry beyond that mentioned in Wealth Tax Return.
Gujarat High Court held that since the order passed by the Appellate Authority has attained finality and no demand is outstanding against the appellant, it is unjustified to withhold the seized gold. Accordingly, directed to release the remaining gold at the earlier.
Allahabad High Court held that the scope of decision u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act is limited to the existence or otherwise of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The same would otherwise remain subject to reassessment order passed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Calcutta High Court held that show cause notice not specifying the charge against the assessee is bad-in-law. Accordingly, initiation of the penalty proceedings is vitiated.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unaccounted cash receipts on the basis of seized documents i.e. rough notes duly supported with corroborative evidence sustained.
