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 CIT(A) must decide all grounds, including legality of reopening under Section 147/148. Order remanded for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
ITAT Chennai ruled that an assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number violates CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and is invalid. Tribunal held that non-compliance with circular’s mandate cannot be cured by later communication of DIN. Orders lacking DIN are deemed never to have been issued.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment under Section 153C cannot exceed the ten-year block calculated from the date of handover of seized materials, setting aside notices for AYs 2010–11 to 2015–16.
Once the order of ITAT had attained finality on factual aspects and assessee had discharged the entire liability, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound, under Section 225(2) to lift the attachment on property.
Delhi ITAT held that AYs 2010–11 and 2011–12 fell outside the limitation for Section 153C and found no valid incriminating material for later years, setting aside all related assessments.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment for AY 2010-11 was invalid since it exceeded the ten-year limitation from the search year. The notice was declared time-barred and issued without jurisdiction.
TAT Delhi held that a 153C assessment for AY 2012–13 was invalid, as the six-year block must be counted from date of satisfaction recorded by AO of non-searched person.
ITAT Delhi held that ten-year block under Section 153C must be computed from date AO of non-searched person receives seized material, not search date.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments for A.Ys 2011–12 and 2012–13 were invalid since they fell outside the ten-year block reckoned from the date of receipt of seized material. The Tribunal followed CIT v. Jasjit Singh (SC) and Ojjus Medicare (Del HC) rulings.
Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Section 153C assessment, ruling that the ITAT had already addressed the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court judgment. Since the ITAT order contained a finding on the judgment’s applicability, the assessee’s only recourse was a statutory appeal under Section 260A.
