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...
ITAT Delhi held that mere confession of accused cannot be a ground for conviction since the same is not supported by credible evidence on records. Accordingly, addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act deleted.
ACIT Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited (Madras High Court) Re-Assessments Possible even after concluded assessment u/s 153A: Madras High Court’s Landmark Ruling in ACIT v. Dalmia Bharat Ltd. Overview: This is a significant tax law case concerning the reopening of income tax assessments beyond the normal limitation period of four years. The Division Bench of the […]
An assessment order passed by AO was quashed on the reason that assessment year was beyond the ten-year outer ceiling limit prescribed by Section 153A. Assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by AO and consequent passing of the Assessment Order. Assessee challenged the issuance of notice u/s 153A for the assessment year 2008-09 on the reasoning that the said notice was issued beyond the period of limitation.
Patna High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of incorrect information which was not supported by any material is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that approval memo u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act is totally silent on the issues involved and has been granted omnibus approval without any thoughtful process being discernible. Thus, assessment order vitiated due to such mechanical approval.
ITAT Mumbai upheld CIT(A)’s rulings in ACIT vs GM Modular Pvt. Ltd., addressing unverified purchases, PF/ESI disallowances, and incriminating material in search cases.
Allahabad HC upheld ITAT’s decision in PCIT vs Sapna Gupta, ruling the Section 153D approval was mechanical, invalidating the assessment proceedings.
Gulshan Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT (OSD) (ITAT Delhi) No Addition u/s 153A without incriminating material found during search – Statements of third parties not sufficient: ITAT Delhi Gulshan Investment Pvt. Ltd & others Vs JCIT -ITA No.3872/Del/2024 dt 16.4.25 The core dispute involves additions made by the AO u/s 153A following a search & […]
Aggrieved against the directions of CIT(A) to the AO for assessment of gross profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.
The JDA was signed between one Mr. U.K. Hasanabba and Mr. U. Ibrahim on one side as landowners and Mr. Abdul Khader K (on behalf of the assessee) and Mr. K. Hussain Abbas (on behalf of the HNGC Builders and Developers).
