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 issue was whether share capital addition could be sustained without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in absence of incriminating material, the addition under Section 68 is invalid.
The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limitation period and was therefore invalid.
The issue was whether additions could be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that such additions are invalid, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal examined whether addition under Section 68 could be made without seized evidence. It held that no addition is permissible in absence of incriminating material. The key takeaway is that search assessments must rely on concrete evidence.
The issue was whether protective additions can survive when substantive additions are deleted. The ITAT held that once the substantive addition fails on merits, the protective addition based on the same material cannot be sustained.
The issue was whether a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constituted transfer triggering capital gains. The tribunal held no taxable transfer occurred as rights were unsettled due to partition disputes and lack of finality.
The Tribunal held that unexplained cash credits must be taxed in the year they are recorded in the books, not when allegedly received. Since the ₹80 lakh was credited in AY 1997–98, the addition under Section 68 was upheld despite claims of earlier receipt.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
The Court held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamating, non-existent entity is void. It ruled that system glitches cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal ruled that revision under Section 263 requires examination of approval granted under Section 153D. Without establishing any defect in such approval, the assessment cannot be termed erroneous. The decision limits arbitrary revision powers.
