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...
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is mere change of opinion since there is no failure on part of assessee as to full and true disclosure. Accordingly, reassessment is liable to be quashed and set aside.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid where the faceless system applies. It quashed the reassessment proceedings and confirmed that such notices must be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that the addition of Rs. 73,99,475 as LTCG under Section 10(38) was unjustified, as the assessee provided complete evidence and no direct link to alleged bogus transactions was established.
CIT(A)’s order upheld; assessee acted as a middleman, and no evidence supported AO’s mechanical addition. Only Rs.15.42 lakh as brokerage recognized.
Rajasthan High Court held that discretionary remedy claimed by the petitioner not granted as it is a case which involves fraudulent availment of GST Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs. 100 Crore. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash credit cannot be added under Section 68 when the assessee furnishes full documentation, setting aside the addition of ₹15 lakh and related interest disallowance.
ITAT Mumbai held that donations to registered trusts cannot be taxed under Section 69C solely based on third-party statements without supporting evidence.
ITAT held that once investments were accepted in prior assessments, their sale proceeds cannot be treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that Section 68 cannot be invoked without fresh incriminating evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
