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 Tribunal examined whether execution of a development agreement alone triggers capital gains. It held that without consideration or statutory transfer of possession, no capital gains arise.
The issue was whether share capital could be added in a completed assessment without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in an unabated year, additions are barred absent incriminating material.
Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
The ITAT held that assessments framed beyond the permissible ten-year block under Section 153C are without jurisdiction. Since the satisfaction note fixed the deemed search year later, earlier years were invalidly assessed.
ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made for an unabated year unless incriminating material is found during search. Share premium additions based only on books and enquiries were rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that extended block assessment beyond six years is invalid where escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Jurisdiction under Sections 153A/153C cannot be assumed without meeting statutory limits.
The Tribunal held that land cost must be allocated based on saleable/built-up area under the JDA, not total land area. It directed adoption of a higher per-sq-ft land cost while recomputing capital gains.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained when no incriminating material is found at the assessees premises. Additions based on third-party material were quashed as being without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that cash advances/on-money received for an ongoing real estate project cannot be taxed before completion when the Project Completion Method is consistently followed. Income already offered and accepted in the completion year cannot be taxed again earlier.
The Tribunal held that wrist watches are valuable articles covered under Section 69A, and additions made under Section 69 were unsustainable.
