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...
The tribunal ruled that unverified claims of cash payments based on third-party material cannot justify tax additions. It emphasized that evidence must directly implicate the taxpayer.
The issue was validity of reopening beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal held the notice issued after the prescribed time was invalid, and quashed the entire reassessment.
The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)’s decision for wrongly quashing assessment due to lack of notice under Section 143(2). It held that Section 263 proceedings are a continuation of original assessment.
The case addressed whether a special audit can be ordered without establishing complexity or defects in accounts. The Court examined whether mechanical invocation of Section 142(2A) without proper justification is legally sustainable.
The Court ruled that the reassessment notice was invalid as it exceeded the statutory 10-year limit under Section 153A. It clarified that the search year must be included in computing the extended limitation period.
ITAT held that reassessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, even if return was filed late. The ruling emphasizes that issuance of notice is mandatory and absence of it makes the assessment void.
The issue involved additions for alleged cash payments based on third-party data and statements. ITAT deleted the additions, holding that no independent evidence or cross-examination opportunity was provided.
The issue was whether a single satisfaction note can cover multiple assessment years under Section 153C. The Tribunal held that absence of year-wise satisfaction renders the proceedings invalid. The key takeaway is that jurisdiction requires specific satisfaction for each year.
The issue was whether reassessment under Section 147 is valid after a search. The ITAT held it invalid, ruling that only Section 153A applies post-search, making the reassessment void.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. It emphasized the absence of independent evidence and upheld the taxpayers denial of cash payments.
