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...
Madras High Court held that the provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act will not apply in case of initiation of search initiated on or after 01.04.2021. Accordingly, notices issued u/s. 153C are liable to be quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on a third-party excel sheet, without any direct evidence of cash payment, was unsustainable. With a complete RTGS trail, registered deed, and vendor confirmation proving bank-only payment, the ITAT ordered deletion of the Section 69 addition.
The issue involved a common sanction letter covering multiple assessees and years, issued on the same day the AO sought approval. ITAT found this composite approval inconsistent with judicial mandates requiring individualized scrutiny. As a result, the assessment was declared void ab initio, making all additions infructuous.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 jurisdiction is barred under Explanation 1(c) if the matter is under appeal before CIT(A). AO’s assessment, including enquiry into statements and ledgers, was found proper. PCIT’s revision attempting to tax full Rs.1.59 Cr as bogus purchase was quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that issuing a Section 143(2) notice before communicating reasons for reopening deprives the assessee of its statutory right to object. This violation invalidated the entire reassessment for the second year. The decision underscores that procedural fairness in reopening is a statutory mandate, not optional.
Tribunal upheld 153C jurisdiction based on seized documents and statements, but rejected the AO’s full bogus-purchase addition, sustaining only a 10% profit estimation after book rejection under section 145(3).
ITAT Mumbai held that once the assessee proved repayment of ₹1 crore via banking channels, Revenue must first disprove the evidence before invoking sections 68 or 69C. Both the addition and related interest disallowance of ₹3.78 lakh were deleted.
The order was remanded after ITAT found the CIT(A) overlooked core issues including validity of belated 148 return, applicability of 153C, and cross-examination rights.
