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 ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an addition for alleged penny stock LTCG under Section 68, ruling that an assessment for an unabated year under Section 153A requires incriminating material found during the search. Since the addition was based on general analysis, not seized documents, the Revenues appeal was dismissed. The key takeaway affirms the Supreme Courts mandate that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without specific incriminating evidence.
ITAT Chandigarh quashed an assessment order made under Section 143(3) for a pre-search year, holding that after a Section 132 search, the assessment must mandatorily proceed under Section 148 with proper Section 148B approval. The tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s continuation of the scrutiny post-search was a jurisdictional error, making the assessment void ab initio.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that reassessment under Section 153A is invalid when no incriminating material is found during a search. The Court held that conversion of a firm into a company, fulfilling Section 47(xiii) conditions, is not taxable as a transfer.
ITAT Chennai held that when sales are accepted and supported by records, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers were untraceable. Addition restricted to 12.5% as profit element.
ITAT Delhi held that cash seized during search operations can be adjusted against self-assessment tax. The order distinguishes between advance tax and self-assessment tax, directing deletion of demand raised by CPC.
Assessments framed under Section 153A based on mechanical approval under Section 153D were invalid in law as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) had accorded omnibus and perfunctory approval to multiple draft assessment orders without application of mind, thereby vitiating the assessments.
ITAT Chennai deleted additions made in search assessments (u/s 153A), ruling that Income Tax Department cannot make additions without specific, incriminating material seized during search. Following Supreme Courts ruling in Abhisar Buildwell, Tribunal held that search assessments are not fishing expeditions and must be strictly limited to evidence found post-search.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment is invalid in as much as the approval/ sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act is granted in a mechanical manner. Further, reasons for reopening are based on on-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since specific limb of Section 270A(9) leading to under-reporting of income or mis-reporting of income is not specified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer needs to lift attachment of the property based on orders passed by the highest fact finding authority has attained finality and there is no payment pending on the part of the assessee.
