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 ruled that once an assessment under Section 153A is approved under Section 153D, it cannot be revised under Section 263. This reinforces limits on PCIT’s revisional powers.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once the Assessing Officer is aware of a merger, assessment in the name of the amalgamating company is invalid and without jurisdiction.
The Court held that once ITAT upholds the appellate order and the assessee clears all dues, attachment of property must be lifted even if a departmental appeal is pending.
ITAT Mumbai held that no extrapolation can be done on estimation basis in absence of any incriminating material. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Thus, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of stale information results into change of opinion and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and reopening is quashed.
Delhi High Court held that addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted since the said amount is already disclosed before Income Tax Settlement Commission. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Once the order of ITAT had attained finality on factual aspects and assessee had discharged the entire liability, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound, under Section 225(2) to lift the attachment on property.
Once an appellate authority like the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT deleted a tax addition and assessee’s liability stood discharged, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound to give effect to such order and lift the attachment.
DCIT Vs Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) No Incriminating Evidence, Only Excel — ITAT Deletes ₹25 Cr Addition in Moser Baer Group Case Search was conducted on the Moser Baer Group, covering Assessee’s premises. During search, an Excel sheet titled “Funds Position” was found on a group employee’s laptop, showing loan entries. […]
