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...
ITAT Delhi deleted penalties imposed for alleged cash transactions after holding that the electronic evidence relied upon by the Revenue was inadmissible in law. The Tribunal observed that mandatory procedures relating to digital evidence handling and chain of custody were not properly followed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiating penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Lakshmi Rice Mills.
The Tribunal deleted penalty levied on society charges and depreciation disallowances after finding that the claims were fully disclosed in books and audited financial statements. It held that ad hoc disallowances alone cannot trigger concealment penalty.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 69A cannot be invoked where loan transactions are fully routed through banking channels and recorded in regular books of account. The Tribunal deleted the addition despite Revenue alleging the transactions were accommodation entries based on third-party search material.
The Bangalore ITAT ruled that once substantive addition under Section 2(22)(e) is sustained in the managing partners case, the corresponding protective addition in the firm’s hands must be deleted. The ruling clarifies that protective assessments are only temporary safeguards.
Tribunal ruled that income tax demands not included in the approved resolution plan were irrevocably extinguished. The decision followed the terms of the NCLT-approved insolvency resolution plan restored by the Supreme Court.
TAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the property was actually purchased from a different company than the one referred to in the recorded reasons. The Tribunal found absence of any live nexus between the assessee and the alleged incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that once transactions are treated as bogus, there is no basis for separately allowing expenses reflected in gross profit. Telescoping was therefore restricted to net income disclosed in the return.
ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually execute infrastructure projects and bear the associated risks. The Tribunal ruled that the JV structure formed only for bidding does not defeat eligibility.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
