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...
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, upholding judicial precedents and deleting Rs. 6.66 crore addition, emphasizing that hypothetical income cannot be taxed.
Court ruled that FEMA summons issued under Section 37 operate within a civil-procedural framework and are not subject to gender-based safeguards under Section 160 CrPC. The key takeaway is that a woman cannot claim exemption from personal appearance in FEMA inquiries.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 additions as the Revenue relied only on uncorroborated statements and pen-drive data from third parties, violating natural justice. Suspicion alone cannot justify tax additions.
The court held that undisclosed investments in school property could be assessed against the wife due to her familial control over the educational society. Seized documents from the husband’s premises were relevant and sufficient evidence.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening assessment beyond four years is invalid when all material facts were disclosed. Depreciation claims on Slump Sale assets remain intact.
The Court found that reassessment must proceed through the faceless regime and not through a jurisdictional officer. Since the notice was issued in breach of this mandate, both the notice and assessment order were quashed.
Assessments on foreign-sourced income were deleted after the ITAT confirmed the assessee’s Non-Resident status under Explanation 1(a) of Section 6(1).
ITAT held that mass same-day approval without reviewing records violated Section 153D. The ruling confirms that mechanical approvals invalidate 153A assessments.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was legally sound and unaffected by arguments based on 153C or Notification 18/2022. Still, it directed a full rehearing because the appellate authority issued non-speaking orders without examining the merits.
Delhi High Court ruled that prosecution under Income Tax Act Sections 276C and 278E can proceed when evaded tax exceeds Rs.25 crores, even if appeals are pending, confirming proper authority delegation.
