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 Mumbai held that documents seized from employees cannot be considered as having any evidentiary value and cannot be considered to have trustworthiness, since no other corroborative material was brought on record to support the veracity of the same. Hence, documents seized from employees cannot be relied upon for denying exemption u/s 11.
Delhi High Court rules assessment can be reopened only with incriminating material found during Section 132 search. Details on Shyam Sunder Jindal vs ACIT case.
ITAT Delhi held that simultaneous issue of the DIN number is insignificant and superfluous exercise, in the absence of mentioning the DIN number on the body of AO’s order. Thus, Assessment order without DIN is void ab initio.
Learn how Avaada Ventures Private Limited challenged an invalid Section 153A order in ITAT Mumbai. Analysis of the case, judgment, and conclusion provided.
Explore recent Uttarakhand High Court judgment quashing an FIR under Section 153A IPC. Analysis reveals lack of evidence for disharmony; key insights into mens rea, religion-based allegations.
Since the legislature vested the discretion to extend the timeframe solely in the AO, he could not have abdicated that function and confined his role to only making a recommendation to the CIT. CIT had no role in extending the timeframe as the AO was in seisin of the assessment proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of Rs 37 crores of exempt capital gain in a non-descript listed company operated by the accommodation entry provider, who has confessed that he has provided accommodations entries to the beneficiaries, including assessee remanded back to the file of AO for further enquiry.
ITAT Jaipur held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the ground and default on the part of the assessee and also without specifying the undisclosed income on which penalty was proposed to be levied is unsustainable-in-law.
Addition under section 69A on account of actual cash arranged/paid by assessee to HKA was available with the assessee was not justified as “ownership” of money had not been recorded in the books of account and AO had made only presumption that the said cash was ‘available with the assessee’ without bringing on record any material in support thereof.
The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) order passed without Document Identification Number (DIN) number should be treated as invalid and was contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019 as it was clear in the body of DRP order, no DIN number was mentioned nor there was any reason of not mentioning the DIN number in order of the DRP.
