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...
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act solely on the basis of material found by AO of searched person without satisfaction note as prescribed under section 153C is untenable in law.
Chhattisgarh High Court allows the bail application in Rs. 4000 Crore liquor scam case in the absence of any distinguishing material against the applicant. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.
The issue was whether commission income could be estimated without rejecting books of account. The Tribunal ruled that estimation without invoking section 145(3) and section 144 is impermissible.
The issue was whether reassessment based on identical, template reasons was valid. The Tribunal held that reopening without independent application of mind amounts to borrowed satisfaction and is invalid in law.
The Tribunal examined whether a cash addition under section 69 could rest solely on an Excel sheet seized from a third party. It held the addition unsustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence and violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal rejected estimated additions based on alleged circular trading due to lack of seized material or cash trail. The key takeaway is that suspicion and presumptions cannot replace evidence in search assessments.
The Revenue sought to reopen completed assessments under section 153A without fresh incriminating evidence. The Tribunal ruled that such additions are barred, following Kabul Chawla and Abhisar Buildwell.
The issue was whether a buyer could be taxed for alleged cash payment based only on the seller’s admission. The Tribunal ruled that in the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, no on-money addition can be sustained in the buyer’s hands.
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
The reassessment was initiated for AY 2013-14 using reasons recorded for AY 2012-13. ITAT held that reopening for the wrong year is void, causing the entire Section 147 assessment to collapse.
