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 reassessment initiated after three years was void because approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is strict compliance with section 151(ii) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
The Tribunal held that it was unclear whether the ₹20 lakh receipt was a loan or a property advance and remanded the matter for fresh examination. The ruling underscores that section 68 additions depend on establishing the true character of the receipt through contemporaneous evidence.
The Revenue relied on alleged ₹4 crore unexplained investment to justify reopening beyond six years. The Tribunal ruled that even high-value allegations cannot override statutory limitation under section 153C.
The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings where the section 148 notice and section 148A(d) order were issued by the JAO instead of the FAO. It reaffirmed that post-notification violations of the faceless scheme cannot be cured by participation or waiver.
ITAT held reassessment invalid as it was initiated merely on Insight Portal data and third-party statements without verification or application of mind.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by a JAO after 29.03.2022 are void, as only a Faceless Assessing Officer can act under the faceless regime.
The ITAT ruled that reassessment under section 153C cannot extend beyond the statutory six assessment years. Jurisdiction assumed outside this period was held void.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that satisfaction must be recorded contemporaneously or immediately after the searched person’s assessment. Any belated recording invalidates the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C.
The Tribunal ruled that cessation must be evidenced by a write-back or clear act in the books. Inferences or time lapse alone cannot trigger section 41(1).
Mumbai ITAT upholds deletion of ₹70 lakh under Section 69, ruling that uncorroborated WhatsApp scribbles from a third party cannot establish unexplained cash income.
