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 held that reopening AY 2012–13 after a post-2021 search was barred by limitation. Applying Supreme Court guidance, it ruled that older limitation periods protect concluded assessments from retrospective reopening.
Additions under Sections 68 and 69C were set aside after the Tribunal found the mandatory approval to be a mere formality. The ruling reinforces that Section 153D approval is not a procedural ritual.
The tribunal ruled that reassessment beyond four years is barred when reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. Mere suspicion of escaped income is insufficient to override the statutory limitation.
The Revenue argued that incriminating material justified Section 153C action against a non-searched person. ITAT held that High Court quashing of notices conclusively ends jurisdiction under Section 153C.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits. The matter was remanded to ensure proper consideration after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
Reopenings based on assumptions, conjecture, or generalized allegations were struck down. The ruling reiterates that reasons must show tangible material, application of mind, and a live nexus with escaped income.
Revenue failed to produce a Section 153C satisfaction note showing the date of handing over seized material. ITAT treated the notice date as the deemed search date and held AY 2012-13 beyond jurisdiction.
The issue was whether an assessment could survive when statutory notices were issued in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal held such notices invalid and quashed the entire assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that for an unabated year, additions under section 153A require incriminating material. A seized loose sheet and retracted statements lacked corroboration, leading to deletion of the ₹100 crore addition.
The tribunal ruled that statements of third parties cannot be relied upon unless the assessee is provided copies and allowed cross-examination. Denial of this right renders the additions legally untenable.
