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 Tribunal held that notices under section 153C issued without independent satisfaction by the AO are invalid, quashing the consequent assessments for AY 2018-19 to 2020-21.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed loans from Hallow Securities and Dhankalash were genuine, rejecting Revenue’s allegations of shell-company loans. Interest claimed on these loans was also allowed. The ruling highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in section 68 assessments.
Delhi ITAT sets aside CIT(A) order for hearing merits despite refusing to condone an eight-month delay, highlighting the need for proper legal procedure and natural justice.
The ITAT annulled the entire reassessment because the Section 148 notice was issued after the Supreme Court–mandated surviving-period cutoff. The ruling confirms that any notice beyond this timeline is void ab initio.
The ITAT ruled that a vague, copy-paste satisfaction note cannot confer valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since no specific seized documents were identified, the entire assessment was struck down.
ITAT Delhi held that granting blanket 153D approval without independent examination vitiates assessments. approvals under section 153D must be individualized and carefully considered.
ITAT Delhi ruled that section 153C notices for AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14 were time-barred, exceeding the 10-year limit from receipt of seized material. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction under 153C requires both timeliness and relevance of incriminating material. All assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that reliance on the remand report without giving the assessee a chance to rebut violated natural justice. While the jurisdiction challenge was rejected as time-barred under section 124(3), the ₹5.80 crore LTCG addition was sent back for fresh examination. The case underscores that appellate authorities must provide fair opportunity before upholding major additions.
High Court quashed Section 153C notices and assessment as diaries and loose sheets lacked evidentiary value, reaffirming statutory requirements for assessing income. SC Upholds HC Decision
High Court dismissed writ petition, confirming that reassessment under Section 147 is valid when no incriminating material is found, and Section 153C is inapplicable.
