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 Tribunal held that loan repayment cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The addition was deleted as i...
Income Tax : Reassessment proceedings was invalid for a notice issued beyond three years without the sanction of the prescribed higher authorit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that unsigned excel sheets without supporting evidence cannot justify additions. It ruled that absence of corrob...
Income Tax : The issue was whether addition can be made based on third-party investigation findings. The Tribunal held that without direct incr...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deletes Section 69 additions holding that third-party excel sheets and statements without corroborative evidence lack ...
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 case addressed whether tax authorities can issue notices for multiple years based on one satisfaction note. The tribunal ruled that each assessment year requires an independent satisfaction linking seized material.
Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. Inordinate delay in recording the satisfaction note can lead to the proceedings being quashed as time-barred.
The court held that a retracted statement by a trustee alleging capitation fee collection cannot justify tax additions without corroborative evidence. In the absence of proof from students or supporting documents, the Revenue’s presumption was held unsustainable.
The court ruled that submitting revised returns showing higher income after a search does not wipe out earlier concealment. Criminal proceedings for wilful tax evasion and false statements remain maintainable.
The High Court held that only 30 days of limitation survived after applying TOLA and Supreme Court rulings. Notices issued after expiry of the surviving period were declared time-barred.
ITAT Delhi held that recording a single satisfaction note for multiple assessment years violates Section 153C requirements. As no year-specific incriminating material was identified, the assessments were quashed along with the related penalty.
Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as provisions of section 158BA(2) of the Income Tax Act. Matter must specifically fall within Block Assessment Scheme for abatement. However, writ dismissed as power under Article 226 not invoked.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment as the notice issued beyond three years failed to satisfy mandatory conditions under Section 149(1)(b). It held that absence of proper jurisdictional facts and compliance rendered the reopening invalid.
Section 69C addition of ₹1.10 crore deleted as pen drive data lacked valid 65B certificate; ITAT Hyderabad held third-party digital evidence inadmissible without corroboration.
The Tribunal clarified that mere search under Section 132 does not automatically justify reopening. The AO must demonstrate year-specific escapement of income and follow mandatory approval procedures.
