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 issue was whether Section 153C proceedings could continue when seized material was handed over after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal ruled that such notices are barred by law, rendering the assessment void.
The issue was whether reassessment could survive when objections to reopening were ignored. The Tribunal ruled that non-disposal of objections violates mandatory procedure and renders the reassessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening beyond six years is invalid without a recorded satisfaction of undisclosed assets exceeding ₹50 lakh. The takeaway is strict compliance with the fourth proviso to section 153A is mandatory.
The issue was whether third-party diaries and loose papers could establish receipt of unaccounted income. The Tribunal ruled that such papers, without authorship verification or corroboration, cannot fasten tax liability.
The Tribunal ruled that completion of assessment after search, despite statutory abatement, is impermissible. Jurisdiction shifts exclusively to Section 153A proceedings.
It was ruled that interest for late filing of the original return can be computed based on tax determined in search-related assessment. Timely filing after notice does not negate earlier delay.
The Tribunal held that estimating commission income without corroborative evidence is unsustainable. Audited accounts and consistent interest income showed genuine business activity, leading to deletion of the addition.
ITAT held that penalties under sections 271D and 271E cannot survive once the underlying additions are deleted. The ruling confirms that penalties collapse with the quantum.
The ITAT held that assessments framed beyond the permissible ten-year block under Section 153C are without jurisdiction. Since the satisfaction note fixed the deemed search year later, earlier years were invalidly assessed.
The Tribunal held that a loan repaid through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained when identity and creditworthiness are shown. Allegations based on untested statements were rejected.
