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 a regular assessment could survive once section 153C was triggered for a non-searched person. The Tribunal ruled that pending scrutiny abates, making an assessment under section 143(3) void from inception.
The ITAT held that an unsigned and unexecuted seized agreement cannot establish receipt of cash. The key takeaway is that additions under Section 69A require proof of actual receipt, not mere allegations.
The Tribunal set aside an addition made only on documents seized from a builder during search proceedings. The ruling underscores that independent evidence against the assessee is mandatory.
The issue was whether common and ritualistic approval under section 153D can sustain search assessments. ITAT held that mechanical approval without independent application of mind vitiates the entire proceedings.
The notice under section 143(2) did not conform to the CBDT-prescribed format. ITAT ruled that a defective notice strikes at jurisdiction and invalidates the assessment.
ITAT held that Section 153C cannot be invoked where the satisfaction/hand-over date is after 01.04.2021, quashing multiple assessments framed thereafter. The ruling follows the Madras High Court and reinforces Section 153C(3)’s statutory bar.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where no incriminating material was found during search. Documentary evidence proving the loan’s genuineness was accepted.
The High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C cannot stand where the satisfaction note lacks a date and is communicated after an unexplained two-year delay. Strict compliance with statutory requirements was reaffirmed.
The case examined the effect of prolonged departmental inaction after a Tribunal remand. The Court ruled that since the statutory time limit had long lapsed, nothing survived for adjudication.
The issue was whether additions can rest on seized loose sheets termed as dumb documents. The Tribunal upheld Section 69C additions, holding that seized material supported by statements is valid evidence.
