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 a single approval could cover multiple assessment years in search cases. It held that separate approvals are mandatory for each year. The ruling underscores strict procedural compliance under section 153D.
The Tribunal clarified that expenditure disallowances do not qualify as assets under section 149(1). Without asset-based escaped income, reopening beyond three years is barred. This offers strong protection against belated reassessments.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without issuing a compulsory notice under section 153C lacks jurisdiction. Even seized material cannot cure this foundational defect, rendering the order void ab initio.
The tribunal held that prior approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without application of mind. Such invalid sanction vitiated the entire search assessment, leading to quashing of the order.
Court held that reopening of assessment based solely on vague information from Insight Portal, without a live nexus to the assessee’s records, was invalid. Reassessment notice was quashed for absence of concrete material showing income escapement.
The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material linked to the loan was found, the Section 68 addition was deleted.
Holding that justice requires a reasoned order after hearing both sides, the Tribunal remanded the appeals. Continued non-cooperation may still permit ex parte disposal.
The decision reiterates that section 150 is subject to section 150(2) and cannot revive time-barred or jurisdictionally invalid assessments. Directions to reopen were struck down as unlawful.
The assessment relied on investigation reports without examining the alleged entry provider. The Tribunal held that cross-verification is essential before sustaining additions under section 68.
The Tribunal held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed under section 153C without incriminating material found during search. Additions based solely on third-party data were ruled invalid.
