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 case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid bus...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assump...
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 : 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 Chennai held that addition under section 69 towards unaccounted gold and silver jewellery set aside relying on CBDT instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court rules on Section 153C notices for AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 in Dev Technofab Limited Vs DCIT, citing lack of incriminating material for reopening assessments.
Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to de-freeze bank account of company alleged to have dishonestly induced individuals/ investors to invest in cloud particles thus involved in scheduled offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
ITAT Raipur held that AO has passed the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153B(b) of the Act without seeking a prior approval of the same by the Jt. CIT u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act and hence the order so passed is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for invoking penalty provisions u/s. 270A(9)(e) without issue of intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act is unjustifiable and untenable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held survey statements cannot solely justify income addition without corroborative evidence. Case: DCIT Vs Ahinsa Infrastructure (AY 2014-15).
Addition made under Section 69A for an alleged unexplained cash loan was not justified as assessee provided evidence of receiving the loan through banking channels and not through cash.
From April 2025, updates to Sections 132 & 132B will streamline search and seizure processes, extending approval timelines and updating legal references.
Telangana HC rules that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof for undisclosed investments during block assessment, upholding the addition.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the same assessing officer is required to pass an order under the new scheme after giving notice under Section 148 of the old Act. Thus, all the writ petition are dismissed.
