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...
Jayant B Patel HUF Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) (a) No penalty under Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied in respect of undisclosed income found in the course of search but which were duly returned by the assessee in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act together with compliance of other conditions […]
Dinesh Salecha Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It was expounded that in case of assessments which have attained finality no addition under section 153A can be done without seized incrementing material. We are aware that in these cases earlier assessments were not done u/s 143(3). In our considered opinion, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has never […]
Where regular assessment for the year under consideration remained unabated as on date of search, same could not be interfered with while framing section 153A assessment, in the absence of incriminating material discovered during search.
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee is correct in stating that cognizance taken under section 153A of the Act is illegal at the end of the A.O.?
whether Assessment year in respect of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act to be same 6 years in the case of other person, for which the proceedings u/s 153A is initiated in the case of connected searched person?
The issue under consideration is whether Assessemnt order u/s 153C issued in the name of Amalgamated Company will be considered as valid?
Search conducted on the basis of warrant of authorization issued in the name of non-existing entity and consequent assessment framed under section 243(3) read with section 153A were bad in law being nullity in the eyes of law.
The issue under consideration is whether the assessment u/s 153A can be considered as valid even if no incriminating material found during the course of search?
This write-up is all about the key amendments introduced by the Hon’ble CBDT vide Notification No. 60 dated 13.08.2020 and Notification No. 61 dated 13.08.2020 modifying the earlier ‘E-assessment Scheme, 2019’ notified on 12.09.2019 and highlights of scheme.
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of notice u/s 153C instead of section 153A is considered as valid assessment or not?
