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 deleted the unexplained investment (Section 69) and cash interest (Section 69A) additions, emphasizing that unsigned, vague slips and digital data, where the parties were not confronted and no independent verification was done, have no evidentiary value in search assessment law. This aligns with Supreme Court rulings on the invalidity of additions based on non-speaking loose sheets.
The Tribunal voided the reassessment, citing multiple legal failures: it was time-barred under the new law, the AO failed to share mandatory material, and the condition under Section 149(1)(b) requiring a proven asset/expenditure was not met. The ruling provides strong takeaways on the validity of new reassessment provisions.
ITAT annulled an assessment and addition of $\text{Rs. }31.80$ crore of share capital made under Section 153C, ruling that the jurisdiction was invalid for an unabated assessment year. The key takeaway is that for an already completed assessment, the AO must rely on incriminating material found during the search, not mere statutory documents already in the books.
CBDT’s new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibility, non-refundable fees, mandatory payment of all outstanding tax dues, the structure of compounding charges for offences like TDS/TCS default or tax evasion (Sec. 276C), and rules for late applications.
The ITAT Kolkata quashed a search assessment (Sec. 153A) because a search was never physically conducted on the assessee’s premises, ruling that a mere mention in a panchnama is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The key takeaway is that an assessment under Sec. 153A is void ab initio if an actual search on the person or property of the assessee is not initiated and conducted.
This ruling invalidates an income tax addition that relied entirely on electronic data (an excel sheet) seized from a third party without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The ITAT stressed that in the absence of corroborative evidence, clear linking of the assessee to the data, and providing due process, the addition made was illegal and unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that a mechanical, same-day approval for 43 cases under Section 153D vitiated the entire search assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The assessment was quashed for lack of valid approval, emphasizing the necessity of independent application of mind by the approving authority.
The Delhi ITAT ruled that a tax addition based on a vague name in uncorroborated loose papers is invalid without direct evidence linking it to the assessee. The decision emphasizes that suspicion from such dumb documents cannot replace concrete proof in tax assessments.
After the High Court rejected the capital gains argument, the Tribunal applied Section 14 to classify the receipt from the trusteeship surrender. Since the amount did not fit into any specific head of income (Salary, Business, or Capital Gains), the ITAT ruled it must be taxed under the residuary head, Income from Other Sources.
The ITAT ruled that loose, uncorroborated diaries maintained by a third party are dumb documents and cannot be the sole basis for major tax additions or the denial of Section 11 exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion is not a substitute for proof, and denying Section 11 requires concrete evidence of a violation under Section 13.
