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...
The Telangana High Court ruled that Section 148 notices for central charge cases must follow the faceless procedure under the Finance Act, 2021, quashing JAO-issued notices.
Karnataka High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings has been initiated is bad-in-law. Accordingly, question is answered in favour of respondent/assessee.
Court rules partial co-ownership of property constitutes ownership under Section 54F, disallowing exemptions claimed on reinvested capital gains. Tribunal’s earlier allowance set aside.
The Tribunal held that a reopening made after three years is void when approval is granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/CCIT. The entire reassessment and related disallowance were struck down.
ITAT held that additions based on an unsigned, unverified Excel sheet from a third party lacked evidentiary value. The reassessment was quashed as the assessee provided independent evidence disproving alleged on-money payments.
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
Since valid service of notice was a mandatory jurisdictional requirement before initiating reassessment proceedings, therefore, purported notices issued under Section 148 including reassessment proceedings under
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A could not stand because the JPACK ledger titled “SABARI” was not proven to belong to the assessee. The ruling emphasises lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the seized material.
The Court held that the approval granted for multiple search assessments was issued in a consolidated, mechanical form without case-specific consideration. It noted that Section 153D requires meaningful application of mind, which was absent in the approval examined by the Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition made on the basis of documents found from the third party without providing any opportunity of cross-examination is liable to be deleted on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
