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...
Read the ITAT Mumbai order on Arshiya Ltd vs. DCIT for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2012-13. Learn about additions in 153A assessment based on incriminating material and their deletion.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on wrong and irrelevant facts recorded under the reasons recorded for the formation of belief of escapement of income chargeable to income tax is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi affirms penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act against Amandeep Singh Sran for concealing income. Analysis of the case and its implications.
ITAT Mumbai held that with regard to addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act it is directed to set the matter back to AO to verify whether the source for the additions made in the hands of the assessee is explained through the settlement made before the settlement commission.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidences to justify the genuineness of the payments and therefore their mere non-attendance of summons, cannot be reason enough to disbelieve the genuineness of the transactions with them. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69C deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that entire assessment order passed in the case of non-existing entity is null and void and hence is liable to be quashed.
In a significant decision, ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of D.C. Polyester Ltd., stating that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed for incorrect income head treatment.
Analysis of ACIT Vs Karsan Bhai Khimabhai Patel case where AO’s lack of independent inquiry invalidated unexplained investment addition. Learn more about ruling.
ITAT Delhi held that the additions/disallowance, devoid of any incriminating material found during the course of search, cannot validate the assessment orders framed u/s 153C of the Act. Accordingly, assessment orders u/s 153C cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as assessee has filed necessary evidence to explain nature and source for cash deposits.
