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 article explains who can file appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the orders that are appealable, applicable tim...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that additions cannot stand without a clear link between seized material and the assessee. It ruled that third-p...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
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 : Gujarat High Court held that rejection of a Vivad se Vishwas declaration was invalid because final assessment arose from survey pr...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 69 could not be sustained solely on the basis of a seized loose sheet without ind...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that assessments under Section 153A were invalid because no search warrant was issued in the assessee’s name. As t...
Income Tax : The ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment orders were time-barred under Section 153 despite the DRP process. Both assessments we...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that limitation under Section 153B had to be computed from the searched person's last panchanama, making the assessm...
Income Tax : Central Government has decided to extend the time limits to 30th June, 2021 in the following cases where the time limit was earlie...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 addition on alleged on-money, holding third-party statements and unverified pen drive data lack evidentiary value without corroboration or cross-examination, upholding natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon were later retracted and lacked corroboration. It held that such statements cannot form sole basis of addition. The ruling emphasizes need for supporting evidence in tax proceedings.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The tribunal ruled that revisionary powers cannot be exercised without questioning the statutory approval under Section 153D. Absence of such examination renders Section 263 action invalid.
The Court held that the notice issued after six years from the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation. The reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under section 153C were declared invalid.
The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assumptions cannot replace evidence. The ruling protects taxpayers from arbitrary additions.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was invalid where it was based on third-party search material. It ruled that Section 153C was the correct legal route, leading to deletion of additions.
The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 days violates mandatory provisions, rendering the notice and entire reassessment proceedings invalid.
The Court held that a 21-month delay in recording the satisfaction note violates the requirement of immediacy. It ruled that such delay renders proceedings time-barred and invalid.
