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...
Relying on Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, the Tribunal held that granting a consolidated, template-style approval for multiple assessment years under Section 153D is illegal. The key takeaway is that the mandatory approval for a search assessment (Sec. 153C/153D) requires independent application of mind for each assessment year.
The ITAT confirmed the reopening u/s 147/148 beyond the four-year limit was valid, as information from the wife’s assessment about the joint account constituted a new and tangible reason to believe income escaped. Despite upholding the reopening, the Tribunal granted significant taxpayer relief by accepting documentary evidence for property-related transactions and reducing the addition to a minimal amount.
The ITAT Pune ruled that a reassessment initiated under sec.147/148, even for non-filers who later filed a return, is void ab initio if the mandatory 143(2) notice is not issued. The Tribunal set aside the cash deposit addition and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, reinforcing that 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement.
ITAT Hyderabad deleted the Capital Gains addition in AY 2016-17, ruling that conditional possession under a JDA for mere development is NOT transfer u/s 2(47)(v). Tax is due only when full possession is handed over, confirming taxability in AY 2019-20.
The Tribunal held that a generic, non-specific satisfaction note and the absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee-company rendered the Section 153C proceedings invalid from the outset.1 Consequently, the entire assessment, including additions for commission income, was quashed.
Following the ratio of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that the rubber stamp approval {u/s 153D} was non est in law, leading to the quashing of all assessments and the deletion of huge additions made against the assessee. The key takeaway for taxpayers is the success of challenging search assessments on the legal ground of invalid, mechanical u/s 153D approval.
This ruling underscores the mandatory requirement for incriminating material to sustain additions in a Section 153C search assessment, leading to the deletion of a major bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) addition. Furthermore, the ITAT confirmed that a partnership firm’s investment and income cannot be attributed to an individual partner, securing significant tax relief.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that share of profit from taxable AOPs cannot be taxed again in the member’s hands, upholding ITAT’s order in Principal Commissioner vs. Ramesh Chandra Rai.
The AO made massive ex-parte additions under Section 69A after the assessee failed to respond to notices sent to an incorrect email ID of his deceased former CA. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication, utilizing the Finance Act 2024 amendment to Section 251, which grants the CIT(A) the power to remit Section 144 best judgment assessments.
Hyderabad ITAT ruled that the Rs.153C notice against VPR Mining for AY 2018-19 was void ab initio. The court held that without incriminating material pertaining to the relevant year, an assessment based solely on external GST data, independent of the original search and seizure, is invalid.
