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...
Rajasthan High Court accepted bail application in the case of issuance of fake GST invoice since maximum punishment for the alleged offence is five years and accused has already suffered custody of more than seven months.
ITAT Delhi held that merely because particular scrip is identified as penny stock it doesn’t mean all the transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus. Addition, u/s. 68 deleted in absence of allegation of assessee being involved in any price rigging or price increase.
Orissa HC addresses challenges to the initiation of tax assessment and the retrospective effect of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s 68 is sustained. Since, addition u/s 68 has been upheld, the expenditure incurred to earn the above sums are to be added u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure.
ITAT Kolkata held that treating purchases from concern as bogus merely because for another year purchases from the said concern were treated by AO as bogus is not justified since in relevant year AO duly treated the purchases as genuine.
AO observed that there was substantial undisclosed income, as the assessee admitted to unaccounted business income amounting to Rs.3,50,04,000/- during the search proceedings but did not file a return for the assessment year 2014-15.
Delhi High Court held that as AO didn’t assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, recourse to section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment proceedings justified. Accordingly, appeal by revenue allowed.
The AO proceeded to treat the transactions as penny stock and relying on the investigation report on penny stock from the Investigation Wing, he disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,28,58,450/-.
The assessee filed three appeals against order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14. It is important to note that inspite of putting up the case of hearing several times, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.07.2015 and subsequent dates in different business and residential premises of Deepak Agarwal, Mukesh Kumar and others, group of cases based at Delhi.
