Income Tax : This document provides a complete reference on compounding of offences, including application procedures, offence-wise charges, re...
Income Tax : The FAQs explain the revised CBDT guidelines on compounding offences under the Income-tax Act effective from 17 October 2024. They...
Income Tax : The FAQs explain the prosecution provisions under the Income-tax Act, covering offences such as tax evasion, non-payment of TDS/TC...
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 : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashed a Section 153C assessment, holding that a consolidated and defective satisfaction note invalidated jurisdiction...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a registered sale deed without corroborative evidence is not incriminating material and cannot support additions in...
Income Tax : ITAT held reassessment under Sections 147/148 invalid because it was based on a pre-1 April 2021 third-party search, requiring pro...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed a Section 148 notice issued after the limitation under the first proviso to Section 149, holding the reassessm...
Income Tax : ITAT held that penalty under Section 271D cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessme...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without establishing the assessee as the actual beneficiary of cash credits. It upheld deletion where ownership was not proven.
The Tribunal allowed deduction of royalty paid for use of a logo, noting that no specific defect was found in the supporting evidence. It held that the expenditure could not be disallowed merely on grounds of justification without examining its business purpose.
The issue was whether share capital addition could be sustained without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in absence of incriminating material, the addition under Section 68 is invalid.
The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limitation period and was therefore invalid.
The issue was whether additions could be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that such additions are invalid, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal examined whether addition under Section 68 could be made without seized evidence. It held that no addition is permissible in absence of incriminating material. The key takeaway is that search assessments must rely on concrete evidence.
The issue was whether protective additions can survive when substantive additions are deleted. The ITAT held that once the substantive addition fails on merits, the protective addition based on the same material cannot be sustained.
The issue was whether a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constituted transfer triggering capital gains. The tribunal held no taxable transfer occurred as rights were unsettled due to partition disputes and lack of finality.
The Tribunal held that unexplained cash credits must be taxed in the year they are recorded in the books, not when allegedly received. Since the ₹80 lakh was credited in AY 1997–98, the addition under Section 68 was upheld despite claims of earlier receipt.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
