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...
The Tribunal ruled that third-party WhatsApp messages and decoded chat entries lacked evidentiary value against the assessee without corroborative material. The Revenue failed to prove that any cash was actually paid over and above the registered sale consideration.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were invalid where the case was based on search material requiring action under Section 153C. The ruling reinforces that search-related assessments for third parties must follow the special procedure under Section 153C, not regular reassessment provisions.
The Delhi ITAT found that the Assessing Officer lacked legal authority to reopen assessment years lying outside the ten-year block period computed under Section 153C. Revenue’s appeals challenging the CIT(A)’s decision were dismissed.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that isolated WhatsApp messages and electronic communications cannot, by themselves, support additions in search assessments. The Tribunal deleted several additions because no corroborative evidence established actual cash transactions. The ruling underscores that suspicion cannot replace proof in tax proceedings.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act could not be imposed when foreign assets were subsequently disclosed in returns filed under Section 153A. The Tribunal relied on the principle that such returns substitute the original returns.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to issue notice under Section 143(2). The decision confirms that compliance with this statutory requirement is indispensable in reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that consolidated approvals granted without application of mind under Section 153D were invalid. Consequently, the related assessment orders were declared void and quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 263 cannot be invoked where the assessee never claimed the alleged expenditure as a deduction. Without any allowance in the assessment order, there can be no prejudice to Revenue.
The Tribunal observed that reliance on third-party statements without providing cross-examination rendered the additions legally unsustainable. The judgment highlights the procedural safeguards available to taxpayers in search-related proceedings.
The Department argued that Section 292BC validated the approval despite alleged deficiencies, but the Tribunal rejected this contention. It held that the amendment could not apply to approvals granted before 1 April 2021. The ruling clarified that subsequent legislative changes could not cure defects in earlier approvals.
