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 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 : The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 does not permit the PCIT to substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer when two ...
Income Tax : Additions made by attributing the commission income earned by PSPL as undisclosed income of the Assessees were held unsustainable ...
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...
Assessments arising from searches conducted after 01.04.2021 must strictly comply with the reassessment framework under sections 147 and 148. Failure to adhere to statutory jurisdictional requirements, including mandatory approvals and satisfaction for use of third-party material, rendered the entire assessment void.
The case involved additions for alleged on-money in Godhavi land transactions based on a handwritten loose sheet. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh consideration, highlighting issues relating to evidence and assessment findings.
The Gujarat High Court upheld reopening of assessment after the Assessing Officer received information linking the assessee to alleged accommodation entries. The Court held that such information constituted tangible material sufficient to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.
The ITAT held that once profit is estimated on unaccounted sales, separate additions for wages and operational expenditure cannot be made again under section 69C. The ruling treated such additions as double taxation of the same income stream.
ITAT held that loose sheets showing cash and cheque transactions could not justify additions under Section 153A where related cheque transactions were accepted as genuine and linked to group business dealings.
Bangalore ITAT held that unsigned loose sheets, scribblings, and rough jottings without corroborative evidence cannot form the sole basis for tax additions. The Tribunal deleted the protective additions linked to alleged capitation fee receipts.
The Bangalore ITAT held that mere differences between declared construction cost and DVO estimates cannot sustain additions under Section 69B without independent evidence of unaccounted investment. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to hostel construction expenditure.
The Bangalore ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted statements are insufficient to sustain large on-money additions in search assessments. Additions based purely on estimates without incriminating evidence were deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that deemed dividend provisions require evidence of withdrawal from a company in which the assessee is a shareholder. Since the shortage related to a proprietary concern, the addition was deleted.
The Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Department was liable to compensate an assessee for delayed release of seized KVPs and IVPs after settlement dues were paid. The Court awarded interest for the delay period and additional simple interest for continued non-payment.
