Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : AY 2015-16 assessment under Section 153C held time-barred. Judicial rulings confirm six-year limit runs from handing over of seize...
Income Tax : Learn why a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is legally invalid under Section 153C of the Income Tax A...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assump...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was invalid where it was based on third-party search material. It ruled that Se...
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 : The Court held that a 21-month delay in recording the satisfaction note violates the requirement of immediacy. It ruled that such ...
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...
Revenue argued no separate satisfaction was needed as the searched and other person had the same AO. ITAT rejected this, holding that since AOs were different on the date of satisfaction, the defect was fatal.
The dispute concerned whether the limitation period under Section 153C should be counted from the search date or from the date seized documents were handed over. The Court held that the handover date governs, excluding earlier assessment years from reassessment.
The High Court quashed tax additions where the assessee was denied cross-examination of a key witness whose statements were relied upon. The ruling reiterates that such denial violates principles of natural justice.
The issue before the Court was whether a bare approval lacking application of mind could sustain proceedings under Section 153C. The Court held that mechanical approval vitiates the proceedings, reaffirming that valid approval is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act stands quashed due to lack of jurisdiction since there was no transfer of the case of the assessee from Delhi to Jaipur.
The Tribunal held that after 29-03-2022, only a Faceless Assessing Officer is empowered to issue notices under Section 148. Notices issued by a jurisdictional officer were declared void, vitiating the entire reassessment.
ITAT Bangalore invalidated a reassessment where the assessee was not provided the recorded reasons, emphasizing that reopening notices must be supported by clear, communicated reasons before filing returns.
Delhi ITAT ruled that assessments for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 under section 153C were invalid as the statutory block period starts from the satisfaction note date, not the original search.
The dispute centered on whether a reassessment notice was time-barred and sanctioned by the correct authority. The Tribunal held that the reply period under section 148A must be excluded, bringing the notice within three years and validating the sanction.
The issue was whether section 153C could extend beyond six years without discovery of an undisclosed asset of ₹50 lakh or more. The ITAT held that in absence of such asset-based satisfaction, extended jurisdiction is invalid.
