Income Tax : Budget 2025 revises block assessment rules for search cases, covering undisclosed income, assessment procedures, penalties, and ti...
Income Tax : Explore reintroduction of block assessments under Income Tax Act via Finance Act 2024, its implications, challenges, and way forwa...
Income Tax : Understand the compounding of offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961, including categories, charges, and procedures as per the Fi...
Income Tax : Learn about prosecution under IT Act sections 275A to 280, including penalties and conditions for launching prosecution....
Income Tax : Learn about the compounding of offences under direct tax laws, including eligible offences, competent authorities, and the process...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Gauhati High Court held that addition merely on the basis of retracted statement without any other relied upon evidence/ material ...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act refrains from incorporating a specific provision permitting the fili...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur sets aside Resonance Eduventures assessment orders, citing mechanical approval by Addl. CIT without proper applicatio...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court held that section 12AA empower the Principal Commissioner to pass order cancelling registration granted u/s. 12A...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that developer is entitled for deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act for carrying out development w...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
Explore recent Uttarakhand High Court judgment quashing an FIR under Section 153A IPC. Analysis reveals lack of evidence for disharmony; key insights into mens rea, religion-based allegations.
Since the legislature vested the discretion to extend the timeframe solely in the AO, he could not have abdicated that function and confined his role to only making a recommendation to the CIT. CIT had no role in extending the timeframe as the AO was in seisin of the assessment proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of Rs 37 crores of exempt capital gain in a non-descript listed company operated by the accommodation entry provider, who has confessed that he has provided accommodations entries to the beneficiaries, including assessee remanded back to the file of AO for further enquiry.
ITAT Jaipur held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the ground and default on the part of the assessee and also without specifying the undisclosed income on which penalty was proposed to be levied is unsustainable-in-law.
Addition under section 69A on account of actual cash arranged/paid by assessee to HKA was available with the assessee was not justified as “ownership” of money had not been recorded in the books of account and AO had made only presumption that the said cash was ‘available with the assessee’ without bringing on record any material in support thereof.
The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) order passed without Document Identification Number (DIN) number should be treated as invalid and was contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019 as it was clear in the body of DRP order, no DIN number was mentioned nor there was any reason of not mentioning the DIN number in order of the DRP.
Delhi High Court dismisses Section 153A proceedings in PCIT vs Oxygen Business Park case. Analysis of the impact on income tax assessments post-search. Learn more.
Jharkhand High Court held that relevant assessment year shall mean as assessment year (AY) preceding AY relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond Six AY but not later than 10 AY from the end of AY relevant to previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 for AY 13-14 duly issued as search was conducted in AY 2023-2024.
Jharkhand High Court held that initiation of prosecution proceedings under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act in absence of any demand, as demand adjusted against refund, is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside.
In the case of D.C. Polyester Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), penalty under section 270A was contested for changing income head. Detailed analysis and outcome explained.
