Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules unaccounted customer deposits, with traceable identities and commercial substance, are liabilities, not income ...
Income Tax : Budget 2025 revises block assessment rules for search cases, covering undisclosed income, assessment procedures, penalties, and ti...
Income Tax : Explore reintroduction of block assessments under Income Tax Act via Finance Act 2024, its implications, challenges, and way forwa...
Income Tax : Understand the compounding of offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961, including categories, charges, and procedures as per the Fi...
Income Tax : Learn about prosecution under IT Act sections 275A to 280, including penalties and conditions for launching prosecution....
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai rules on Sakthi Realty case, deleting additions for unexplained deposits. Details on customer deposits, tax assessmen...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act based on WhatsApp chats with spe...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the approval granted u/s. 153D in the nature of a ‘technical approval’ in symbolic exercise of powers und...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rul...
Corporate Law : Madras High Court held that re-opening of assessment u/s. 147 must be based on some tangible material without such tangible materi...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
In the present case, the assessees being the builders, had the option to recognize their income either on percentage completion method or on project completion method. Therefore, it was not certain to hold that the assessees were liable at all to file returns under section 139(1). Whether the assessees had recognized their income for the impugned assessment years is also not clear. The returns were filed after search made under section 132 but before the issue of notice under section 153A.
There is no doubt that the authority concerned, who issues the warrant for searches and seizure, ought to have the necessary materials before him to have a reason to believe that an order for search and seizure is warranted. However, it is clear that if certain materials are available before the authority concerned to arrive at his conclusion, then it is not for this Court to examine as to whether there were sufficient materials or grounds to arrive at such a conclusion.
Section 153A of the Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.06.2003 and it provides for assessment in the case of search or requisition. It is mandatory for the assessing officer, whenever there is a search under section 132, to issue notice to the person searched requiring him to furnish the returns of income for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted.
We find that, the AO accepts that the assessee is an infrastructure developer. But we look into the main objection of the AO that being a developer by itself is not enough to avail the deduction, but the assessee should have maintained, operated and handed it back to the government.
No material is produced before us to prove that the AO in the case of person searched was satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books accounts or documents seized or requisitioned belongs to or belong to a person other than the person referred to in sec. 153A. No material is produced before us to show if any satisfaction was recorded by the AO in that case that the seized material belongs to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made u/s 132 of the Act.
From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that after the assessment order is passed, the assessee is entitled not only for the refund but also simple interest on the amount as has been provided under sub-section 4(a) and (b) of the Act. Sub-section 4(b) provides that such interest shall run from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 was executed to the date of completion of the assessment.
From a bare reading of section 139 and 153A , it is evident that the provisions of section 271F are attracted when a person is required to furnish the return in accordance with section 139(1) or by provisos of that section. Section 153A starts with non-obstante clause and the purpose is only to specify separate time limit for filing the return. The only distinction in section 153A is that the AO is required to issue notice to the assessee requiring him to furnish the return within such period, as may be specified in notice, but otherwise the provisions of the Act have been made applicable accordingly, as if such return were a return required to be furnished u/s. 139. Therefore, all the consequences following for failure to file the return u/s.139 will follow u/s.153A also. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT (A) to interfere and, accordingly, uphold the same.
Supreme Court dismisses revenue appeal confirming ITAT stand on joint names issue. Allahabad High Court judgment explained. #IncomeTax #LegalNews
Entire scheme of the eligibility, powers and procedure before the settlement commission was overhauled by Finance Act, 2007, w.e.f. 1.6.2007. In the overhauled scheme, search / requisition cases covered by the provisions of section 153A of the Act were not allowed to take benefit of the settlement commission. It also excluded the cases of related persons whose documents were seized as provided for in Section 153C of the Act.
