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 case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid bus...
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 : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting additions for AY 2013–14, ruling that year fell outside six-year block under Section 153C based on satisfaction date in FY 2021–22.
The Tribunal sustained the addition due to the AO’s rejection of the books under s.145, which was warranted by the assessee’s non-submission of separate purchase/sale and MRP details for country liquor and IMFL. The ITAT found the 10 estimated GP rate reasonable, falling within the normal range for the liquor trade, and confirmed the addition.
The dispute was the computation of the block period under S 153 for a non-searched person, where the AO counted the period from the search date. The ITAT affirmed the quashing of the assessment, ruling that the block period must be reckoned from the date the seized material is received by the jurisdictional AO, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
The ITAT Mumbai canceled seven revisionary orders under section 263, ruling that for completed (unabated) assessments under section 153A, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot make additions or disallowances, such as challenging an 80IC deduction, without finding incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the PCIT’s power under $s.263$ cannot be used for a mere roving inquiry.
Delhi ITAT ruled that a single, non-speaking approval u/s 153D issued for 14 assessment years and two assessees was invalid, holding that approval must be year-specific and assessee-specific. All assessments were quashed as void ab initio.
In a search assessment dispute, the ITAT Delhi struck down an addition of cash payments, concluding that the diary entries used as evidence were rough, unsigned jottings with no established link to the taxpayer’s finances beyond speculation. The entire addition was deleted as the diary lacked legal evidentiary value.
Delhi ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding deletion of a Rs.19.18 crore protective addition against an alleged entry operator. Ruling affirmed that since AO accepted assessee as a commission agent, only estimated commission income, and not entire turnover, was taxable in agent’s hands.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of Vivaan Prakash, quashing the u/s 153C assessment for AY 2018-19. The Tribunal ruled that the single u/s 153D approval granted by the Addl. CIT for two assessment years was mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the entire assessment based on precedents like PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (Delhi HC).
Relying on Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, the Tribunal held that granting a consolidated, template-style approval for multiple assessment years under Section 153D is illegal. The key takeaway is that the mandatory approval for a search assessment (Sec. 153C/153D) requires independent application of mind for each assessment year.
The Delhi ITAT sustained a Rs.42.98 lakh addition for unexplained expenditure found in a seized diary, ruling that the entries proved a sufficient nexus to the assessee under Section 292C. However, the Tribunal provided partial relief by directing the lower tax rate under the pre-amendment Section 115BBE to be applied for AY 2015-16.
