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 : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : A summary of prosecution offences under Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act (Sections 275A to 280), detailing the rigorous imprison...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : The case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid bus...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that loan repayment cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The addition was deleted as i...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : Reassessment proceedings was invalid for a notice issued beyond three years without the sanction of the prescribed higher authorit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that unsigned excel sheets without supporting evidence cannot justify additions. It ruled that absence of corrob...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
The Tribunal emphasized that even pending SLPs cannot override the statutory 10-year limitation for assessments. Revenue’s attempt to reopen AY 2010-11 under Section 153A was rejected, upholding the CIT(A)’s quashing of the order.
ITAT Raipur set aside a Rs. 14.73 lakh addition under Section 69C after finding the CIT(A) misinterpreted the assessee’s wife’s financial capacity, affirming proper documentation supports legitimate expenditure.
Tribunal held that AY 2010–11 was beyond the statutory 10-year window, making the 153A assessment invalid. Time-barred years cannot be revived under extended search assessments.
The Delhi High Court upheld ITAT’s order, ruling that no incriminating material was seized, and investor companies had sufficient net worth. Additions under Sections 68 and 153A were not justified.
Delhi High Court held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without any incriminating material found during search. The Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal, reaffirming that additions under section 153A require evidence of undisclosed income or assets.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Telangana High Court held that a Section 148 notice issued for AY 2017-18 was invalid and barred by the six-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 149. Reopening assessments beyond the prescribed period is impermissible.
The issue involved a common sanction letter covering multiple assessees and years, issued on the same day the AO sought approval. ITAT found this composite approval inconsistent with judicial mandates requiring individualized scrutiny. As a result, the assessment was declared void ab initio, making all additions infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions must be supported by actual evidence, not mere surmise from third-party statements. The assessee’s invoices and valuer reports disproved alleged cash payments, leading to complete deletion of additions.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
