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...
This document provides a complete reference on compounding of offences, including application procedures, offence-wise charges, repeat offence rules, and CBDT approval requirements. It reflects the provisions of the Income-tax Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2026.
ITAT held that agricultural land within the prescribed municipal distance is a capital asset and restricted the on-money addition to the amount supported by evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that applying the gross profit rate of a different assessment year was excessive. It reduced the addition to 1% GP while holding that purchases still required proof of genuineness.
The Madras High Court held that delayed transfer of seized documents under Section 132(9A) did not invalidate notices issued under Section 153A. It ruled that the statutory time limit is directory and the assessment proceedings can continue.
The High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C cannot be initiated without incriminating material relating to the specific assessment year. It quashed the notice and all consequential proceedings.
Smt. Pavithra Sugichandran Vs Office of the DCIT (Madras High Court) The Madras High Court considered six writ petitions challenging assessment orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 to 2020-21. The petitioner’s husband, a director of Gateway Office Parks Limited (GOPL), faced allegations of siphoning company funds, leading to a search and seizure operation. Materials allegedly […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions solely on the ground of absence of incriminating material without examining the evidence on merits. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after verification of the assessee’s claims.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned loose paper containing only jottings could not justify an addition without corroborative evidence. The addition of alleged interest income was therefore deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that WhatsApp chats indicating suppressed production for one month could not be extrapolated to the entire financial year without corroborative material. The Tribunal restricted the addition to the profit element for a three-month period.
The Karnataka High Court held that merely filing an income tax return does not amount to retracting a statement recorded under Section 132(4). It upheld the restoration of the Rs.1.5 crore addition after finding the alleged retraction to be belated.
