Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules unaccounted customer deposits, with traceable identities and commercial substance, are liabilities, not income ...
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 new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules on Sakthi Realty case, deleting additions for unexplained deposits. Details on customer deposits, tax assessmen...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act based on WhatsApp chats with spe...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the approval granted u/s. 153D in the nature of a ‘technical approval’ in symbolic exercise of powers und...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rul...
Corporate Law : Madras High Court held that re-opening of assessment u/s. 147 must be based on some tangible material without such tangible materi...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
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.
Delhi High Court’s verdict on reassessment under Section 153A of Income Tax Act without incriminating material. Analysis and legal implications. Learn more.
ITAT Chandigarh held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as special audit completed u/s. 142(2A) and audit report submitted within the extended time limit provide by AO.
Since there was no DIN mentioned in the assessment order which was contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019, therefore, the jurisdiction assumed was invalid as generation of DIN subsequently and generation of intimation to be sent to assessee were of no consequence for the purpose of assessment and raising the demand.
ITAT Delhi held that commission taxed @2% of the amount of accommodation entries provided by the assessee has not been made on ad hoc basis, however, the same is as per prevailing market rate. Accordingly, the addition is sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment framed u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act based on material found during search on third party without following the mandate of section 153C of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
Delhi High Court held that the notice under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act should have been issued before the period of limitation as prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Narendra Kumar Gupta, stating that books of account and vouchers are not required in a 44AD return, deleting additions u/s 69A.
In Completed/Unabated Assessments, AO Cannot Make Additions in Absence of Incriminating Material Found during Section 132 or 132A Search
