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 Tribunal sustained the addition due to the AO’s rejection of the books under s.145, which was warranted by the assessee’s non-submission of separate purchase/sale and MRP details for country liquor and IMFL. The ITAT found the 10 estimated GP rate reasonable, falling within the normal range for the liquor trade, and confirmed the addition.
The dispute was the computation of the block period under S 153 for a non-searched person, where the AO counted the period from the search date. The ITAT affirmed the quashing of the assessment, ruling that the block period must be reckoned from the date the seized material is received by the jurisdictional AO, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
The ITAT Mumbai canceled seven revisionary orders under section 263, ruling that for completed (unabated) assessments under section 153A, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot make additions or disallowances, such as challenging an 80IC deduction, without finding incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the PCIT’s power under $s.263$ cannot be used for a mere roving inquiry.
ITAT Delhi quashed a reassessment, ruling that jurisdictional AO lacked authority to issue a Section 148 notice after CBDT notification assigned exclusive power to NFAC under Section 151A. The key takeaway is that post-March 29, 2022, only NFAC can validly initiate reassessment proceedings under faceless regime.
Delhi ITAT ruled that a single, non-speaking approval u/s 153D issued for 14 assessment years and two assessees was invalid, holding that approval must be year-specific and assessee-specific. All assessments were quashed as void ab initio.
In a search assessment dispute, the ITAT Delhi struck down an addition of cash payments, concluding that the diary entries used as evidence were rough, unsigned jottings with no established link to the taxpayer’s finances beyond speculation. The entire addition was deleted as the diary lacked legal evidentiary value.
Delhi ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding deletion of a Rs.19.18 crore protective addition against an alleged entry operator. Ruling affirmed that since AO accepted assessee as a commission agent, only estimated commission income, and not entire turnover, was taxable in agent’s hands.
This ruling clarifies that cash deposits during the demonetization period cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 68 when they are fully reflected in the business’s accepted books and sales. The ITAT emphasized that the AO failed to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) before making the addition, thereby deleting the entire demand.
Judicial precedent from Karnataka HC confirms that Assessing Officer must provide not less than seven days to an assessee to respond to a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). Failure to comply renders the notice and all subsequent reassessment steps, including the order and penalty notice, invalid.
Section 270A penalties must specify the exact misreporting clause. Vague notices invalidate penalties and can restore immunity under Section 270AA.
