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 Hyderabad held that notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid, stressing only FAOs can issue such notices under the faceless assessment scheme.
Detailed seized agreement and subsequent sale deed considered strong corroboration. Addition under Section 69A sustained in search-based reassessment.
The Tribunal accepted that the 7.5% rebate was a pre-negotiated commercial discount and not an unaccounted cash return. As the seized loose sheets were unverified and unsupported by witnesses, the ₹9.06 crore addition failed.
Madras High Court held that the provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act will not apply in case of initiation of search initiated on or after 01.04.2021. Accordingly, notices issued u/s. 153C are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Delhi High Court held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without any incriminating material found during search. The Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal, reaffirming that additions under section 153A require evidence of undisclosed income or assets.
The Court held that extended pre-trial detention would infringe the petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial. It relied on Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged incarceration in documentary-based cases. Bail was therefore granted on strict terms.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The issue involved a common sanction letter covering multiple assessees and years, issued on the same day the AO sought approval. ITAT found this composite approval inconsistent with judicial mandates requiring individualized scrutiny. As a result, the assessment was declared void ab initio, making all additions infructuous.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 jurisdiction is barred under Explanation 1(c) if the matter is under appeal before CIT(A). AO’s assessment, including enquiry into statements and ledgers, was found proper. PCIT’s revision attempting to tax full Rs.1.59 Cr as bogus purchase was quashed.
The Tribunal observed that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were proven through confirmations, returns, and banking trails, and the AO failed to conduct enquiries under Sections 133(6) or 131. It also held that the ₹6.45 lakh loan difference belonged to past years, making the entire ₹22.45 lakh addition unsustainable.
