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...
Karnataka High Court held that provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked since the petitioner was a searched person and not a non-searched person / such other person. Accordingly, the proceedings quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 153C proceedings cannot proceed on mere suspicion; the AO must establish that seized material impacts the assessee’s total income. The assessments for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were fully quashed.
The ITAT Delhi invalidated assessments where the AO failed to record year-wise satisfaction linking seized material to the assessee. Proper satisfaction is essential for initiating Section 153C proceedings.
PCIT invoked section 263 against an assessment under section 153C. ITAT held that without challenging statutory 153D approval, revision is unsustainable, emphasizing that 153D is a statutory safeguard.
PCIT challenged a 153C assessment under section 263. ITAT held that without annulling statutory 153D approval, revision is unsustainable, confirming 153D as a statutory safeguard.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte citing non-prosecution. ITAT Delhi held that mere issuance of notices does not satisfy the requirement of effective hearing. The order was quashed and the matter sent back for fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that satisfaction under Section 153C was recorded long after the search and document transfer. Applying binding judicial precedent, ITAT ruled that the assessment was barred by limitation and therefore null and void.
The Tribunal found that alleged cash payments lacked any agreement, bank trails, or confirmation from recipients, making the addition legally untenable. ITAT emphasized adherence to evidentiary standards under Section 65B and deleted the addition entirely.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 was valid as it fell within the ten-year limit for escaped income in search cases exceeding Rs.50 lakh.
