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 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 : ITAT Mumbai deletes Section 69 additions holding that third-party excel sheets and statements without corroborative evidence lack ...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
The Tribunal held that VAT input credit shown only in the balance sheet cannot be taxed as income. It upheld deletion of VAT, commission, and notional interest additions, dismissing the revenue’s appeal.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB could not be levied because no incriminating documents were found during the search. It ruled that mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income under the statutory definition.
The Tribunal examined the validity of assessments initiated under Section 153C where the Assessing Officer recorded a single consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years. Following binding precedents, the Tribunal held that consolidated satisfaction is a fatal jurisdictional error and quashed the 153C assessments entirely.
The Tribunal noted that the cash was seized in a case involving narcotics, making the assessees story of property-related pooling of funds implausible. With no credible corroboration and significant inconsistencies, the addition under section 69A was upheld. The ruling stresses that factual context can outweigh self-serving explanations.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the assessee discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by proving the lender’s identity and creditworthiness via banking channels and subsequent repayment with interest. It was held that doubts regarding the lender’s own creditors are irrelevant for the assessee’s assessment prior to the 2022 amendment, provided the primary transaction is genuine.
The Tribunal held that section 69A requires unexplained money or valuables to be found; since only documents showing commission were seized, invoking section 69A was invalid. Only 20% of gross commission was allowed as taxable income.
Assessments relying on third-party search material were struck down due to non-recording of satisfaction by AOs of both the searched party and the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed that 153A applies only to searches on the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unaccounted commission based on seized digital sheet without corroborative evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition is deleted and said ground raised by assessee is allowed.
The tribunal confirmed that in search assessments under section 153A, no separate notice under section 143(2) is required. The assessee’s procedural objection was dismissed, aligning with Delhi High Court precedent.
The ITAT held that approvals granted under Section 153D without genuine application of mind are invalid, quashing multiple assessment orders. Key takeaway: mechanical or blanket approvals violate procedural requirements and render assessments null.
