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...
Gauhati High Court held that discharge of burden by assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is question of fact and not substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal is not maintainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed revenue’s appeal by concluding that approach of CIT(A) in singularly dismissing each piece of evidence, we find, is totally incorrect. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter of bogus accommodation entry afresh.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period as stipulated under section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act is not permissible. Accordingly, notice issued beyond time limit set aside.
ITAT Chennai held that notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A of the Act was not a valid notice for the reason that the AO did not specify the satisfaction as to whether assessee had either ‘under reported the income or ‘misreported the income’.
ITAT Kolkata held that in terms of block assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, reopening of unabated assessment without any incriminating material found with respect to concerned assessment year is impermissible in law.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 271AAB of the Income Tax Act imposable even in case of voluntary disclosure or declaration or surrender per se of income. Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue allowed.
As a result, assessee was required to deduct TDS on payments made to Bemo. AO invoked Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on Rs. 12,69,79,006, disallowing the deduction.
Delhi High Court held that the disallowance of expenditure is not sustainable as the evidence and material produced by the assessee establish that it had incurred the expenditure as claimed. Thus, findings of ITAT cannot be perverse.
Delhi High Court held that assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act impermissible unless it is satisfied that document / seized material belonged to the assessee. Thus, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Pune ruled on multiple appeals in Bharati Vidyapeeths case, addressing issues on exemptions under Sections 11, 13, 10(23C), and validity of Section 153C notices.
