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 a third-party seized document could be ignored as a dumb document. It held that once cheque entries in the same document matched recorded transactions, related cash entries could not be disbelieved and addition under section 69C was justified.
The Tribunal held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed under section 153C without incriminating material found during search. Additions based solely on third-party data were ruled invalid.
The issue was whether Section 153C proceedings for seven years could rest on a single satisfaction note. ITAT held that absence of year-wise satisfaction vitiates jurisdiction, quashing all assessments.
The Tribunal ruled that CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding a completed scrutiny assessment. The decision clarifies that remand powers apply only to Section 144 assessments, not regular ones.
The ITAT held that an unsigned and unexecuted seized agreement cannot establish receipt of cash. The key takeaway is that additions under Section 69A require proof of actual receipt, not mere allegations.
ITAT Delhi held that cash is duly recorded in the books of accounts hence addition of the same under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Appeal of the revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside an addition made only on documents seized from a builder during search proceedings. The ruling underscores that independent evidence against the assessee is mandatory.
Delhi High Court held that the Initiating Officer has given reasons to believe as to how petitioner is a Benamidar. Further, writ is not admitted as petitioner has an efficacious remedy before Adjudicating Officer under Section 26 of the Benami Act.
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.
