Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : AY 2015-16 assessment under Section 153C held time-barred. Judicial rulings confirm six-year limit runs from handing over of seize...
Income Tax : Learn why a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is legally invalid under Section 153C of the Income Tax A...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assump...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was invalid where it was based on third-party search material. It ruled that Se...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The Court held that a 21-month delay in recording the satisfaction note violates the requirement of immediacy. It ruled that such ...
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 ruled that revision under Section 263 requires examination of approval granted under Section 153D. Without establishing any defect in such approval, the assessment cannot be termed erroneous. The decision limits arbitrary revision powers.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained merely on third-party Excel sheets and statements. It ruled that absence of independent evidence and denial of cross-examination renders such additions invalid.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
The Bombay High Court invalidated reassessment proceedings because the satisfaction note was recorded with delay and lacked a mandatory Document Identification Number.
ITAT Chennai held that where unaccounted purchases are found and the corresponding sales are not doubted, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax, and not the entire purchase value. Accordingly, addition towards unaccounted purchases duly restricted.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Assessing Officer must establish bogus purchases with cogent evidence before making additions. Since the assessee produced complete records and the AO found no defects, the entire addition was deleted.
The case addressed whether tax authorities can issue notices for multiple years based on one satisfaction note. The tribunal ruled that each assessment year requires an independent satisfaction linking seized material.
Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. Inordinate delay in recording the satisfaction note can lead to the proceedings being quashed as time-barred.
ITAT Delhi held that recording a single satisfaction note for multiple assessment years violates Section 153C requirements. As no year-specific incriminating material was identified, the assessments were quashed along with the related penalty.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an unsigned Excel sheet found during survey, without corroborative evidence, cannot justify addition for alleged cash payments.
