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...
Madras High Court held that assessee can raise additional ground of validity of reassessment proceedings in terms of rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. Accordingly, ITAT justified in accepting the ground that reassessment was change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that reliance on the remand report without giving the assessee a chance to rebut violated natural justice. While the jurisdiction challenge was rejected as time-barred under section 124(3), the ₹5.80 crore LTCG addition was sent back for fresh examination. The case underscores that appellate authorities must provide fair opportunity before upholding major additions.
Madras High Court held that order of attachment of immovable property is required to be lifted as recovery officer is bound to give effect to order of higher authority. Accordingly, since entire arrears is already paid as per order passed by ITAT.
The Tribunal restricted on-money profits to 15%, deleted Transfer Pricing additions, and confirmed bogus purchase disallowances. Jurisdictional objections based on CBDT pecuniary instructions were rejected. The case provides guidance on treatment of search-assessment adjustments and substantiation requirements.
ITAT held that additions based on an unsigned, unverified Excel sheet from a third party lacked evidentiary value. The reassessment was quashed as the assessee provided independent evidence disproving alleged on-money payments.
The Court held that the approval granted for multiple search assessments was issued in a consolidated, mechanical form without case-specific consideration. It noted that Section 153D requires meaningful application of mind, which was absent in the approval examined by the Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
Tribunal emphasizes requirement of notice under section 153C for assessments in block period, quashing AY 2021-22 assessment framed without jurisdiction.
ITAT partly upheld addition of Rs.27.5 lakh as unexplained cash under sections 69A and 115BBE, granting limited relief of Rs.7.5 lakh for partial savings.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition made on the basis of documents found from the third party without providing any opportunity of cross-examination is liable to be deleted on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
ITAT examined Revenue’s protective addition based on alleged beneficial ownership of foreign accounts. It upheld deletion after noting unresolved ownership and procedural gaps, emphasizing that protective additions require clear foundational evidence.
