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 Kolkata held that addition of advances received by the company as deemed dividend in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as advances are received from the concerns purely as business transaction.
Gujarat High Court held that if the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction.
A detailed analysis of the ITAT Amritsar’s decision declaring an assessment order void ab initio due to the wrong section of jurisdiction being cited. An insight into the Indian tax law nuances and key takeaways from the case.
In a recent case, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable when the source of income is disclosed.
Held that in the absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings, the additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act are without jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment untenable as source of investment made by the appellant stands sufficiently explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount under the head ‘capital gain’ not taxable as there is no transfer of any right, title, or interest in the property.
ITAT Amritsar held that in case of non-cooperation during conduct of special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, the time limit to do the same can be extended at the end of the department.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act, the assessment can only be made based on incriminating materials found/ collected during the search from the premises of the assessee. Addition unsustainable no material of incriminating nature was found from the premises of the assessee.
ITAT Indore held that reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 stood abated by virtue of search and seizure action u/s 132(1). Hence, reassessment order passed thereon u/s 147 is illegal.
