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...
Jharkhand High Court held that initiation of prosecution proceedings under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act in absence of any demand, as demand adjusted against refund, is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside.
In the case of D.C. Polyester Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), penalty under section 270A was contested for changing income head. Detailed analysis and outcome explained.
Delhi High Court’s verdict on reassessment under Section 153A of Income Tax Act without incriminating material. Analysis and legal implications. Learn more.
ITAT Chandigarh held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as special audit completed u/s. 142(2A) and audit report submitted within the extended time limit provide by AO.
Since there was no DIN mentioned in the assessment order which was contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019, therefore, the jurisdiction assumed was invalid as generation of DIN subsequently and generation of intimation to be sent to assessee were of no consequence for the purpose of assessment and raising the demand.
ITAT Delhi held that commission taxed @2% of the amount of accommodation entries provided by the assessee has not been made on ad hoc basis, however, the same is as per prevailing market rate. Accordingly, the addition is sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment framed u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act based on material found during search on third party without following the mandate of section 153C of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
Delhi High Court held that the notice under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act should have been issued before the period of limitation as prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Narendra Kumar Gupta, stating that books of account and vouchers are not required in a 44AD return, deleting additions u/s 69A.
In Completed/Unabated Assessments, AO Cannot Make Additions in Absence of Incriminating Material Found during Section 132 or 132A Search
