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...
Delhi High Court held that reassessment notices must be individually evaluated for surviving limitation. AO directed to re-compute limitation under Rajeev Bansal framework before deciding validity.
Delhi ITAT remands the case to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after ex-parte dismissal. Tribunal emphasized that sufficient hearing opportunity must be granted before rejecting appeals.
ITAT Delhi held that a single Section 153D approval for multiple assessees and years is impermissible, rendering all 153A and 153C assessments void ab initio.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 additions as the Revenue relied only on uncorroborated statements and pen-drive data from third parties, violating natural justice. Suspicion alone cannot justify tax additions.
The Gujarat High Court held that information seized from a third party without a direct nexus to the petitioners cannot sustain a Section 153C notice. The AO’s action was quashed.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was legally sound and unaffected by arguments based on 153C or Notification 18/2022. Still, it directed a full rehearing because the appellate authority issued non-speaking orders without examining the merits.
ITAT Hyderabad held that notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid, stressing only FAOs can issue such notices under the faceless assessment scheme.
Detailed seized agreement and subsequent sale deed considered strong corroboration. Addition under Section 69A sustained in search-based reassessment.
ITAT held that AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were time-barred since the 10-year window must be computed from the date of recorded satisfaction. The ruling reaffirms that out-of-range years cannot be assessed under 153C.
The Tribunal accepted that the 7.5% rebate was a pre-negotiated commercial discount and not an unaccounted cash return. As the seized loose sheets were unverified and unsupported by witnesses, the ₹9.06 crore addition failed.
