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 issue was reopening beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid as there was no finding of failure to disclose material facts, a mandatory precondition under the proviso to section 147.
The ITAT upheld deletion of Section 68 additions where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loans were proved through confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements. Once the AO raised no adverse findings in remand proceedings, the additions could not survive.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 cannot be exercised over a search assessment completed under Section 153C with proper approval under Section 153D. Unless such approval is shown to be erroneous, revisional jurisdiction does not arise.
The dispute centered on jurisdiction to assess under Section 153A. The Tribunal clarified that Kabul Chawla principles do not bar additions in abated assessments and ordered a de novo assessment.
The approving authority merely stated that records were perused without demonstrating scrutiny. The Tribunal held that mechanical sanction defeats the statutory purpose and nullifies the assessment.
Additions under section 153A were deleted as they rested only on an unowned diary without proof of authorship or corroborative evidence. The ruling reinforces that suspicion cannot substitute proof in search cases.
Revenue issued 153C notices for years far preceding the satisfaction date. Following binding judicial precedent, the tribunal ruled that such assessments were beyond the ten-year statutory window and could not survive.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under section 147 fails when seized search material exists. The correct and exclusive route is section 153C, making the reopening jurisdictionally invalid.
The Tribunal held that an assessment under section 153C cannot go beyond the material specified in the satisfaction note. Since additions were based on different material, the entire assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void because approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is strict compliance with section 151(ii) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
