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 examined whether Section 153A could be applied to the search year itself. It held that invoking Section 153A for the wrong assessment year was invalid, rendering the assessment void.
The Tribunal held that where reassessment is based solely on search material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under section 153C. Reopening under section 147 was held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
Reassessment was struck down as no satisfaction note by the searched person’s AO was shown. The ruling reiterates that limitation cannot be bypassed through procedural shortcuts.
The issue was whether additions could be made for an unabated year without any seized material. The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating evidence found during search, the assessment under section 153A was invalid and liable to be quashed.
Holding the assessment void ab initio due to limitation, the Tribunal quashed the revision orders. The ruling underscores that revision cannot cure a fundamentally invalid assessment.
It was ruled that granting a single, common approval for multiple assessment years violates the mandate of Section 153D. Each assessment year requires separate and conscious examination by the approving authority.
Additions based on third-party statements alleging circular trading were rejected as they did not refer to the assessee or show any cash trail. The ruling underscores that suspicion cannot replace evidence.
The Tribunal clarified that approval under section 153D is an administrative safeguard and need not contain elaborate reasoning. Allegations of mechanical approval fail without concrete evidence of non-application of mind.
The tribunal held that assessment under section 153C cannot be initiated without seized material belonging to or relating to the assessee. Third-party statements and assumptions, without incriminating evidence, were held insufficient to confer jurisdiction
The Tribunal held that additions in a search assessment cannot survive without incriminating material. Mere repetition of an annulled earlier assessment was found legally unsustainable.
