Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : Courts are divided on whether the DRP-specific deadline under Section 144C(13) overrides the general assessment time bar in Sectio...
Income Tax : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : A summary of prosecution offences under Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act (Sections 275A to 280), detailing the rigorous imprison...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
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 loan repayment cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The addition was deleted as i...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : Reassessment proceedings was invalid for a notice issued beyond three years without the sanction of the prescribed higher authorit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that unsigned excel sheets without supporting evidence cannot justify additions. It ruled that absence of corrob...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Ideal Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is settled legal position that no addition can be made to the income already assessed since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search.
ITAT Pune held In the case of M/s. D.J. Malpani vs. ACIT that in respect of the assessments which are completed prior to the date of search, no fresh claim of deduction can be made by the assessee. Therefore in the given case, assessee is not entitled to make a fresh claim in the return filed u/s.153A
JCIT Vs. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the above group cases search was conducted and assessments were framed u/s 153A/143 (3). The search was conducted on 21.03.2007 and concluded on 22.03.2007. Hence last of the authorisation of search u/s 132 was executed on 22.03.2007.
ITAT-Ahmedabad In the case of M/s Shiv Associates v DCIT quashed the notice u/s 153C relying on the Judgment of the similar case related to the assessee in which the notices u/s 153C were quashed as no satisfaction was recorded by the AO.
Shri Govind G. Sarawagi HUF Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Name of the HUF, who is separate taxable entity, is no where available in the Panchnama. It is also pertinent to note that all the members of the HUF were not covered under the search action.
a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person ] and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against
Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)-Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things. While the Jai puria Group may be the owner of the photocopies of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person.
ITAT Pune held in Mrs Sarita Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs ITO that if the assesse had disclosed its unaccounted income filing return u/s 153A only after it was caught in search by the income tax department then that disclosed income through return would be considered as undisclosed income
ACIT Vs. S.P.Cold Storage (ITAT Raipur)- Mere mentioning of name in Search Warrant & Panchanama not sufficient for contemplating search against the assessee firm, Search at the residential premises of the Partners could not be deemed to be a search on the assessee firm
The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not noting that the impugned assessment had been passed in the absence of proper and valid authorization.
