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...
Mumbai ITAT affirmed the deletion of a ₹2.74 crore F&O loss addition under Section 153A for an unabated year. The addition, based only on the post-search “Project Falcon” report, was void as no incriminating material was found during the search itself, following the Supreme Court’s mandate.
The ITAT Chennai upheld the quashing of a reassessment for AY 2017-18, ruling the u/s 148 notice invalid. As more than three years had elapsed, u/s 151(ii) required sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr.CCIT), not the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT), confirming the jurisdictional defect.
ITAT Chandigarh deletes ₹1.12 Cr addition for Northern Royalty Co. u/s 153C. Assessee’s revised profit (14-15%) was far higher than the 1.47% profit indicated by seized mining records. Arbitrary 18% NP rate rejected; consistency upheld. Revised return accepted.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money found during the course of search is liable to be deleted since assessee has discharged his onus to prove that the cash found is completely verifiable from the audited books of accounts.
Visakhapatnam ITAT dismisses Revenue appeals, quashing protective additions on cotton mills. Protective assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 invalid as substantive addition was in A.Y. 2017-18.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled that protective additions made in reassessment proceedings are invalid because they did not co-exist with a substantive addition for the same assessment year. The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot stand in isolation and cannot be based on mere suspicion to keep a hypothetical option open for the Revenue.
The ITAT Mumbai upheld the deletion of a Rs.2.22 Cr addition under Section 43CA for AY 2018-19, ruling that the 10% tolerance limit (safe harbor) for the difference between sale consideration and property valuation is a beneficial, curative amendment and thus applies retrospectively from the provision’s insertion.
Kerala High Court held that as the gold claimed by the petitioner, is already assessed in the name of the husband of the petitioner, and the proceedings in respect of the same are concluded, the petitioner cannot make a further claim in respect of the same. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
ITAT Chennai sustains 50% disallowance of claimed agricultural income (Padam Kumar Vs DCIT). Holds land ownership alone doesn’t prove cultivation; evidence is necessary.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that when reassessment is based solely on material seized from a third-party search, the Income Tax Department must follow the specific procedure under Section 153C of the IT Act, not the general Section 147.
