Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : AY 2015-16 assessment under Section 153C held time-barred. Judicial rulings confirm six-year limit runs from handing over of seize...
Income Tax : Learn why a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is legally invalid under Section 153C of the Income Tax A...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assump...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was invalid where it was based on third-party search material. It ruled that Se...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The Court held that a 21-month delay in recording the satisfaction note violates the requirement of immediacy. It ruled that such ...
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...
ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the assessment under Section 153C was time-barred because the block period must be calculated from the date the Assessing Officer (AO) of the non-searched person received the seized material. The ruling confirms that the date of the original search is irrelevant for non-searched persons.
ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting additions for AY 2013–14, ruling that year fell outside six-year block under Section 153C based on satisfaction date in FY 2021–22.
The Tribunal sustained the addition due to the AO’s rejection of the books under s.145, which was warranted by the assessee’s non-submission of separate purchase/sale and MRP details for country liquor and IMFL. The ITAT found the 10 estimated GP rate reasonable, falling within the normal range for the liquor trade, and confirmed the addition.
The dispute was the computation of the block period under S 153 for a non-searched person, where the AO counted the period from the search date. The ITAT affirmed the quashing of the assessment, ruling that the block period must be reckoned from the date the seized material is received by the jurisdictional AO, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
Delhi ITAT ruled that a single, non-speaking approval u/s 153D issued for 14 assessment years and two assessees was invalid, holding that approval must be year-specific and assessee-specific. All assessments were quashed as void ab initio.
The Delhi ITAT invalidated a reassessment, ruling the AO failed to establish independent ‘reason to believe’ and merely borrowed satisfaction from an Investigation Wing report without tangible material or a live link to the assessee’s income. This judgment establishes that reassessment cannot be based solely on second-hand, non-incriminating information from a third-party search.
Relying on Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, the Tribunal held that granting a consolidated, template-style approval for multiple assessment years under Section 153D is illegal. The key takeaway is that the mandatory approval for a search assessment (Sec. 153C/153D) requires independent application of mind for each assessment year.
The ITAT confirmed the reopening u/s 147/148 beyond the four-year limit was valid, as information from the wife’s assessment about the joint account constituted a new and tangible reason to believe income escaped. Despite upholding the reopening, the Tribunal granted significant taxpayer relief by accepting documentary evidence for property-related transactions and reducing the addition to a minimal amount.
The ITAT Pune ruled that a reassessment initiated under sec.147/148, even for non-filers who later filed a return, is void ab initio if the mandatory 143(2) notice is not issued. The Tribunal set aside the cash deposit addition and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, reinforcing that 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement.
ITAT Hyderabad deleted the Capital Gains addition in AY 2016-17, ruling that conditional possession under a JDA for mere development is NOT transfer u/s 2(47)(v). Tax is due only when full possession is handed over, confirming taxability in AY 2019-20.
