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 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.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act based on common approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is non-est in the eye of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that mere presence of blank cheque without there being any other evidence, proving earning of any income or making of any capital transaction, the same cannot be treated as income. Accordingly, ground raised by revenue dismissed.
The ITAT ruled that loose, uncorroborated diaries maintained by a third party are dumb documents and cannot be the sole basis for major tax additions or the denial of Section 11 exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion is not a substitute for proof, and denying Section 11 requires concrete evidence of a violation under Section 13.
The ITAT deleted additions in a search assessment, ruling that the AO couldn’t disallow depreciation or sub-contract expenses solely based on an unverified third-party statement without granting the assessee cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized that denial of natural justice and reliance on suspicion cannot replace documentary evidence, such as bank payments and TDS.
The ITAT confirmed that even where technical jurisdiction exists (i.e., abated years), high-pitched additions must be examined on substantive merits, finding the AOs reliance on conjecture and arbitrary estimations unsustainable. This judgment serves as a strong precedent that mere jurisdiction under Section 153A doesn’t grant a license for evidence-less or double taxation.
The ITAT Delhi remanded the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions under 36(1)(va), holding that the due date for deposit is calculated from the actual date of salary disbursement, not the calendar month of accrual. The AO was directed to verify if the deposit was made within 15 days of the month of actual payment to allow the deduction.c
Approval under Section 153D was invalid, as it was granted mechanically and collectively for several years, without independent application of mind. Such perfunctory approval defeats the statutory safeguard intended by the legislature. Consequently, the entire proceedings and assessments were quashed.
Kolkata ITAT ruled in DCIT vs. Jupiter International that a ₹6.7 crore addition in an unabated tax year was illegal. Jurisdiction under Section 153A fails without seized, incriminating material, per SC precedent.
ITAT Delhi held that enhancement made by CIT(A) in absence of show cause notice issued under section 251 of the Income Tax Act is wholly unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and enhancement is quashed.
