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 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.
The ITAT corrected its earlier order after noting that the liberty to reopen completed assessments under sections 147/148 was omitted. The ruling clarifies that absence of incriminating material bars search additions but not lawful reassessment.
The Revenue made additions on alleged penny-stock transactions under section 68. The ITAT held that once section 153C jurisdiction itself fails, the additions automatically fall without examination on merits.
Despite allegations of sham sub-contracts, the project was shown to be completed, commissioned and operational. The Tribunal held that once the asset exists and is used, depreciation cannot be denied without concrete proof of bogus cost.
ITAT Delhi held that mere Whatsapp messages showing demand do not justify Section 69A additions unless actual receipt of money is proved.
Upholding the appellate authority, the Tribunal confirmed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed casually against a non-searched person. Statutory satisfaction requirements are mandatory, not procedural.
