Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : A detailed look at how the Finance Act, 2021 reshaped Sections 147–151, introduced Section 148A, and reduced limitation periods ...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill, 2026 clarifies who can issue notices under sections 148 and 148A. It confirms that only jurisdictional Assessing...
Goods and Services Tax : The court held that once late fee is imposed for delayed annual return filing, a further general penalty is not permissible. Secti...
Income Tax : The issue was whether an assessment could be reopened after four years. The Court held that full disclosure by the taxpayer barred...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
Income Tax : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association requested CBDT to issue Clarification in respect of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : The issue was deletion of additions on unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits. The tribunal upheld deletion, holding ...
Income Tax : The issue involved dismissal of appeal due to delay and non-appearance. The tribunal condoned the delay citing medical reasons and...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening inval...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment notice issued without approval from the correct authority is valid. The tribunal held it invali...
Income Tax : The Court held that reassessment proceedings must be initiated within the statutory time limit. It found the notice issued after t...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 29/2024-Central Excise rescinds six 2022 excise notifications in the public interest, effective immediately. Deta...
Income Tax : Learn how to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act in e-Verification cases. Detailed instructions for Assessing Off...
Income Tax : Explore e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). Detailed guidelines for AOs under I...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that while purchases from a blacklisted entity were not fully proven, the entire amount couldn’t be added to income as corresponding sales were accepted. Following Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal restricted the addition to a 5% profit markup over the declared Gross Profit rate of 12.63%, thereby deleting the majority of the original Rs. 92,20,100 addition.
The Tribunal held that the Jurisdictional AO lacked the legal authority to issue the Section 148 notice after the CBDTs notification mandating the Faceless AO. Since the foundation of the reopening was flawed, the subsequent additions of over ₹1.5 Crore were deleted, and the entire assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, asserting that once supporting documents are filed, genuine capital expenses like a boundary wall cannot be dismissed as bogus. The judgment confirms that only costs directly enhancing the asset’s value (like construction) are eligible as a cost of improvement, leading to the disallowance of security guard charges.
Following the ratio of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that the rubber stamp approval {u/s 153D} was non est in law, leading to the quashing of all assessments and the deletion of huge additions made against the assessee. The key takeaway for taxpayers is the success of challenging search assessments on the legal ground of invalid, mechanical u/s 153D approval.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai ruled in the case of Late Ramasamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani Vs ITO that a loan from one company to another, where a common shareholder holds less than 20% of the voting power in the borrowing company, cannot be taxed as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT set aside a Section 69A addition for unexplained cash payments, ruling that the AO must first verify the facts. The case was remanded because the assessee claimed an original allottee made the payment but failed to provide the plot’s transfer agreement as proof.
The ITAT deleted a ₹78 lakh addition made under Section 68 for alleged accommodation entries from two companies, ruling the issue was covered by multiple binding coordinate bench decisions. Following prior judgments, the Tribunal held that M/s Jay Jyoti India Pvt. Ltd. and related entities were genuine concerns, thus the cash credit addition could not be sustained.
The ITAT Chandigarh quashed income tax assessments under Section 153A, ruling that the mandatory Section 153D approval was mechanical and invalid. The Tribunal held that the approving authority failed to apply independent reasoning, using a ‘rubber stamp’ proforma for multiple assessees without considering specific facts or seized material, thus making the entire assessment void ab initio.
An assessment reopened to tax alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) was declared void ab initio by the ITAT, strictly applying Section 151. The Tribunal held that statutory sanction cannot be bypassed or taken from a non-competent authority, even following the Ashish Agarwal directions, making the entire reassessment jurisdictionally flawed.
This ruling underscores the mandatory requirement for incriminating material to sustain additions in a Section 153C search assessment, leading to the deletion of a major bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) addition. Furthermore, the ITAT confirmed that a partnership firm’s investment and income cannot be attributed to an individual partner, securing significant tax relief.
