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...
The Tribunal upheld exemption where the assessee invested the entire capital gain within time but possession was delayed due to builder-related litigation. The ruling confirms that investment, not possession, is the key requirement under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that extended block assessment beyond six years is invalid where escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Jurisdiction under Sections 153A/153C cannot be assumed without meeting statutory limits.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained when no incriminating material is found at the assessees premises. Additions based on third-party material were quashed as being without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that wrist watches are valuable articles covered under Section 69A, and additions made under Section 69 were unsustainable.
The Tribunal examined whether a single satisfaction note could sustain reassessment proceedings for multiple years under section 153C. It held that a composite satisfaction is valid when based on common seized material spanning several assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld taxation of rental receipts as income from house property because the companys principal object was not property letting. It ruled that business income treatment cannot be claimed merely based on incidental objects in the memorandum.
The reassessment was struck down because it relied exclusively on third-party search material. The ruling clarifies that section 153C, not section 147, must be invoked where incriminating evidence emerges from another persons search.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot be termed erroneous when the same income has already been assessed substantively in another case. The twin conditions of error and prejudice under section 263 were not satisfied.
ITAT held that Section 153C proceedings were invalid as the relevant years fell beyond the six-year window. Time limitation goes to jurisdiction and cannot be cured later.
The Tribunal held that assessments beyond the permissible six-year block under section 153C are invalid. Proceedings were quashed as the relevant years fell outside the statutory limitation.
