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...
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside a ₹1 lakh penalty under Section 271BA, ruling that failure to electronically file the Form 3CEB transfer pricing report was a mere technical and procedural default. Crucially, the report was prepared before the search and later physically filed with the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
The Delhi ITAT quashed a ₹42.10 Crore addition made in a Section 153A assessment, confirming that additions cannot be made to completed assessments without incriminating material seized during the search. The ruling follows the binding Supreme Court precedent in Abhisar Buildwell.
The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the sales tax subsidy as a capital receipt, finding its purpose was to promote industrialization in backward regions, not subsidize production. The ITAT also deleted the Section 14A disallowance, confirming the taxpayer had sufficient own funds.
The Tribunal voided the reassessment, citing multiple legal failures: it was time-barred under the new law, the AO failed to share mandatory material, and the condition under Section 149(1)(b) requiring a proven asset/expenditure was not met. The ruling provides strong takeaways on the validity of new reassessment provisions.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 153A for an unabated assessment year because the Assessing Officer relied solely on entries in the regular books of account. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s mandate that no addition is permissible in completed (unabated) assessments without specific, incriminating material seized during the search.
ITAT annulled an assessment and addition of $\text{Rs. }31.80$ crore of share capital made under Section 153C, ruling that the jurisdiction was invalid for an unabated assessment year. The key takeaway is that for an already completed assessment, the AO must rely on incriminating material found during the search, not mere statutory documents already in the books.
CBDT’s new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibility, non-refundable fees, mandatory payment of all outstanding tax dues, the structure of compounding charges for offences like TDS/TCS default or tax evasion (Sec. 276C), and rules for late applications.
The ITAT Kolkata quashed a search assessment (Sec. 153A) because a search was never physically conducted on the assessee’s premises, ruling that a mere mention in a panchnama is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The key takeaway is that an assessment under Sec. 153A is void ab initio if an actual search on the person or property of the assessee is not initiated and conducted.
The Tribunal held that a mechanical, same-day approval for 43 cases under Section 153D vitiated the entire search assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The assessment was quashed for lack of valid approval, emphasizing the necessity of independent application of mind by the approving authority.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
