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 held that cash deposits were fully supported by stock records and sales invoices, proving they were genuine business receipts. It ruled that Section 68 cannot apply to recorded turnover already taxed.
CIT(A)’s order upheld; assessee acted as a middleman, and no evidence supported AO’s mechanical addition. Only Rs.15.42 lakh as brokerage recognized.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger invoking rule 86A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] without granting pre-decisional hearing and without providing reasons to believe is impermissible. Accordingly, order is quashed.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted and basic supporting documents exist, only the profit element in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. It upheld a 6% GP addition and rejected the Revenue’s demand for 100% disallowance.
Bombay High Court held that grant of approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality. Thus, proceedings u/s. 153A, based on approval u/s. 153D granted without application of mind, is vitiated.
The Tribunal quashed penalties for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, holding that show-cause notices must clearly specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c). Vague notices violating natural justice cannot sustain penalties. This reinforces the strict requirement for specificity in penalty proceedings.
The ITAT quashed assessments under Section 153A due to ex-parte orders, mechanical Section 153D approvals, and failure to give the assessee an opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against disallowance of cash payments in a film production and real estate business. Since the assessee voluntarily offered 20% initially and later 80% of cash expenses as income, the additions were valid. The ruling emphasizes that self-conceded income cannot be contested in later appeals.
The Tribunal condoned an 868-day delay arising from wrong professional advice and Covid-related extensions, holding that the assessee showed sufficient cause. It ruled that the 50C addition under Section 153A lacked incriminating material and directed a full de-novo review.
