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 ruled that a 76/23 split in chats reflected proposed refurbishment costs, not undisclosed cash consideration. In absence of corroborative material, addition under Sections 69 and 115BBE was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal emphasized that approval from the correct specified authority is mandatory where reopening exceeds three years. Failure to comply rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
ITAT held that a portion of cash paid could reasonably be sourced from accumulated withdrawals from joint bank accounts. The remaining unexplained amount was reduced on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction note. As the mandatory requirement of year-wise satisfaction was not met, the entire assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid where the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during original scrutiny. In absence of failure to disclose, reopening under Section 147 was quashed.
The approving authority issued one common approval for multiple years without demonstrating examination of records. The Tribunal ruled such ritualistic approval vitiates the entire assessment.
The Tribunal held that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an uncorroborated statement recorded from another person. In absence of independent evidence, the ₹1.80 crore addition was deleted.
The Tribunal confirmed the jurisdictional validity of reassessment based on new information. However, the addition was restored to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and Section 250(6).
ITAT ruled that reliance on statements without offering cross-examination and without supporting evidence violates principles of natural justice. Additions under Sections 69A and 153C were set aside.
Holding that the search team did not examine the source of cash properly, the Tribunal directed bifurcation of penalty—30% on declared income and 60% on unexplained income.
