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 ITAT held that reassessment based purely on an Investigation Wing report, without the Assessing Officer forming an independent belief, is invalid. Copy-pasted reasons failed to establish a live link between material and escapement of income.
The question was whether the extended ten-year window under Section 153C could be invoked. The Tribunal held that where the satisfaction note shows escaped income below ₹50 lakh, the extended limitation is unavailable.
The ITAT held that once an assessee’s premises are searched, proceedings must be under Section 153A. Invoking Section 153C in such cases is a jurisdictional error.
ITAT held that on-money admitted by a seller before the Settlement Commission cannot be presumed against the purchaser without independent evidence. In absence of any seized material or proof of cash payment, the addition u/s 69 was deleted.
The case examined whether assessments under Section 153C were valid without proper recording of statutory satisfaction. The Court remanded the matter, holding that jurisdiction must be decided before examining additions on merits.
ITAT Delhi held that without a clear and direct connection between the facts and the alleged escapement of income, the reasons recorded remains speculative, therefore, the reopening cannot be justified. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The ITAT held that undated satisfaction notes defeat jurisdiction under section 153C. In such cases, limitation must be computed from the notice date, making assessments beyond the block period void.
The Tribunal examined whether an addition under section 153C could survive without seized material. It held that in an unabated year, additions are impermissible without incriminating evidence found during search, leading to deletion of the addition.
ITAT Delhi clarified that Section 153A is not meant to reassess completed years in absence of seized evidence. The ₹6.11 lakh addition was therefore held to be without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether a completed assessment could be revised without identifying concrete errors. The Tribunal held that vague observations and absence of specific defects do not justify invoking section 263.
