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 case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid bus...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assump...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that loan repayment cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The addition was deleted as i...
Income Tax : Reassessment proceedings was invalid for a notice issued beyond three years without the sanction of the prescribed higher authorit...
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 issue was whether a reassessment notice issued after 31.03.2021 for AY 2014-15 was within limitation. ITAT held the notice time-barred in light of the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal ruling and quashed the entire reassessment.
ITAT held that Section 153C cannot be invoked where the satisfaction/hand-over date is after 01.04.2021, quashing multiple assessments framed thereafter. The ruling follows the Madras High Court and reinforces Section 153C(3)’s statutory bar.
ITAT held that a loan cannot be treated as unexplained merely on the basis of a third-party search statement. When confirmations, bank statements, and repayment evidence are on record, independent verification by the AO is mandatory.
The High Court held that jewellery seized during a search cannot be retained once tax liability is fully settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Continued detention after issuance of Form-5 was declared illegal.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where no incriminating material was found during search. Documentary evidence proving the loan’s genuineness was accepted.
The High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C cannot stand where the satisfaction note lacks a date and is communicated after an unexplained two-year delay. Strict compliance with statutory requirements was reaffirmed.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot proceed on vague notices lacking reasons for alleged escapement of income. Orders under Section 148A(3) and notices under Section 148 were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether additions can rest on seized loose sheets termed as dumb documents. The Tribunal upheld Section 69C additions, holding that seized material supported by statements is valid evidence.
The High Court held that an addition for unexplained investment cannot rest solely on an unsigned and unexecuted agreement. The key takeaway is that Section 69 requires concrete evidence of actual payment, not assumptions drawn from incomplete documents.
The Tribunal applied common sense to accept that some jewellery belonged to visiting relatives. It granted partial deletion, stressing that complete relief requires corroborative evidence.
