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 Bangalore confirmed that income admitted under Section 132(4) constitutes undisclosed income under Section 271AAB. The assessee’s claim of voluntary disclosure to avoid litigation was rejected, validating the ₹30 lakh penalty.
ITAT modified CIT(A)’s 20% addition on alleged bogus purchases to 15%, considering actual sales and material usage. The ruling ensures only profit embedded in disputed purchases is taxed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unaccounted commission based on seized digital sheet without corroborative evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition is deleted and said ground raised by assessee is allowed.
Delhi High Court held that security deposit which is nothing more than sale consideration hence the same used as a devise to postpone tax liability towards an uncertain date. Accordingly, the said question is answered in favour of revenue.
The ITAT ruled that additions under Section 69 based solely on third-party statements and unverified documents cannot stand. Key takeaway: credible, corroborated evidence is essential for tax assessments.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment under section 147 was invalid where the basis of information stemmed from a third-party search. It held that such cases must mandatorily proceed under section 153C. The key takeaway: search-linked data cannot justify a section 147 reopening.
ITAT Hyderabad held that cancellation of registration granted to appellant-society u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act not justifiable since conditions precedent for cancellation of registration u/s. 12AB(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Act not satisfied.
The Tribunal ruled that once an assessment under Section 153A is approved under Section 153D, it cannot be revised under Section 263. This reinforces limits on PCIT’s revisional powers.
ITAT allowed the appeal where tax authority relied on uncertified electronic records to add ₹24,50,000 as unexplained cash expenditure. Ruling underscores necessity of Section 65B certification for admissibility of electronic evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that no extrapolation can be done on estimation basis in absence of any incriminating material. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Thus, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed to that extent.
