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...
The Tribunal reduced commission estimations for sale/purchase and loan entries to 0.40% and 0.50%, excluding intra-group transactions. This ensures compliance with judicial precedents and prevents arbitrary income additions.
ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the ex-parte CIT(A) order where notices were sent to a wrong email ID, causing non-receipt by the assessee. The matter, including Sec.69A addition and denial of cross-examination, was remitted to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the faceless assessment scheme is invalid. The notice contravened Section 151A and the 2022 e-Assessment scheme. The court quashed the notice with directions to follow statutory faceless procedure.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be imposed when no undisclosed income is found during search operations. Loose documents alone do not justify penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice failed to specify the applicable clause under Section 271AAB. It ruled that the omission invalidated the penalty, as the assessee was not informed of the precise charge.
ITAT Jaipur clarified that penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires proper examination of evidence and explanation by the assessee before imposition. Mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that projected profitability notes could not be treated as incriminating material and did not establish undisclosed income. Penalty under section 271AAB was therefore cancelled.
The decision clarified that income supported by books, demat records, and banking documents cannot be penalized as undisclosed under section 271AAB. Penalty reduction by CIT(A) was set aside.
Tribunal holds that surrendered LTCG cannot be treated as undisclosed income when fully recorded in books and supported by verifiable documents. Penalty under section 271AAB was therefore not leviable.
Gujarat High Court upheld the deletion of a Section 271D penalty, ruling that the assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating proceedings. No substantial question of law was found, and the appeal was dismissed.
