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...
S. 68: Statements recorded u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. A copy of the statement together with the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent has to provided to the assessee. If the statement is retracted and/or if cross-examination is not provided, the statement has to be discarded. The onus of ensuring the presence of the deponent cannot be shifted to the assessees. The onus is on the Revenue to ensure his presence
In the instant case, it is the assessment of person allegedly searched, which is disputed before us, unlike the notice issued for the assessment of `other person’ before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, the issue of invalidity of the search warrant in that case was not raised at any point of time prior to […]
Dispute arose between the Department and the assessees with regard to adjustment of such seized/requisitioned cash against advance tax liability etc. Several Courts held that on an application made by the assessee, the seized money is to be adjusted against the advance tax liability of the assessee.
It is proposed to insert an Explanation section 132 and 132A to declare that reason to believe or reason to suspect, as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or Appellate Tribunal.
Statements recorded would certainly constitute information and if such information is relatable to the evidence or material found during search, the same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4).
The sole basis of the Department to assess profit of Rs.70.00 lacs is based upon the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. It is a matter of fact that by the time statement was recorded, the entire project was not sold by the assessee. Only two shops were sold.
Assessee is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. The addition was based on the basis of loan creditors found from the balance sheet already filed prior to the search along with the original return of income.
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that all the persons questioned have confirmed that cheques have been handed over to the appellant only as a measure of security for supply of scrap or for the purpose of obtaining the loan, but all of them have denied having obtained any loan from the appellant. The statements given by those people remains uncontroverted.
The petitioner was a firm of auditors. During the course of search and seizure operations conducted against EMAAR, the laptop computers of two employees of the petitioner, who were conducting an audit of EMAAR, were seized by the Deputy Director.
The statement recorded by an officer on oath will be used as evidence in any proceeding, whereas statement recorded u/s. 133A has not given any evidentiary value because it was recorded by the authority, which has not been empowered to administer the oath to the assessee and take sworn statement.
