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...
Delhi High Court rules ITSC applications filed until March 31, 2021, are valid and must be treated as pending. Retrospective cut-off of February 1, 2021, is arbitrary, violating Article 14.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that denying effective cross-examination of key witnesses, like R.K. Kedia, violated natural justice, vitiating the income tax assessment in a bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) commission case.
Hyderabad ITAT quashes ₹20.50 lakh tax addition based on medical college search documents. Rules third-party material needs corroboration and cross-examination.
ITAT Delhi held that regular assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without aid of section 153C despite satisfaction note from AO of searched person is not supportable in law. Thus, assessment framed u/s. 143(3) is void ab-initio.
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal against Satya Prakash Gupta regarding an addition of ₹1.61 crore for alleged bogus Short Term Capital Loss, as tax effect was below CBDT’s monetary limit.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, ruled against the revenue’s additions of unaccounted capitation fees and cash loan interest under Sections 69A and 69C against the Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust.
Karnataka High Court held that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings and therefore no reassessment of income for the relevant assessment year could be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a diary alleged to show undisclosed income cannot sustain a Rs. 27 crore addition, as it was not seized, lacked corroboration, and mere voluntary surrender by the assessee is insufficient for assessment.
Assessee argued that the order was barred by limitation because it was not served within the prescribed time. AO countered this, claiming the order was dispatched via speed post on December 30, 2017, and had thus left the office within the deadline.
Late Mahabir Prasad (through L/H Mrs. Parul Kansaria) Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT Bangalore Restricts Additions in Search Assessment – Statement Alone Not Incriminating- No Addition in Concluded Years Without Incriminating Material- Unaccounted Sales – Only GP Taxable, Not Entire Turnover Bangalore ITAT dealt with additions arising out of search proceedings in the A-One Steel […]
