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...
Delhi ITAT held that a bank’s valuation report obtained post-search is not incriminating material, restricting unexplained investment addition to a reasonable estimate.
Courts are divided on whether the DRP-specific deadline under Section 144C(13) overrides the general assessment time bar in Section 153.
The Bombay High Court held that Section 153A cannot apply to years without incriminating material, reinforcing the principle that tax additions require concrete evidence.
Karnataka High Court held that provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked since the petitioner was a searched person and not a non-searched person / such other person. Accordingly, the proceedings quashed.
The ITAT set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was dismissed without proper hearing or examination of the assessee’s case.
The case addressed whether recorded purchases of ₹4.55 crore could still be treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that without evidence of off-book investments, section 69 has no application.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 153C proceedings cannot proceed on mere suspicion; the AO must establish that seized material impacts the assessee’s total income. The assessments for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were fully quashed.
The ITAT Delhi invalidated assessments where the AO failed to record year-wise satisfaction linking seized material to the assessee. Proper satisfaction is essential for initiating Section 153C proceedings.
PCIT invoked section 263 against an assessment under section 153C. ITAT held that without challenging statutory 153D approval, revision is unsustainable, emphasizing that 153D is a statutory safeguard.
PCIT challenged a 153C assessment under section 263. ITAT held that without annulling statutory 153D approval, revision is unsustainable, confirming 153D as a statutory safeguard.
