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...
Delhi High Court sets aside income tax notices against Neeraj Bharadwaj, ruling assessments under Section 153C require incriminating material relevant to specific assessment years.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment sustained since documents seized is incriminating in nature. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
Kerala High Court held that section 245C doesn’t prescribed any prior cut-off date for filing settlement application. Unadjudicated notice u/s. 153A/ 153C as on the date of application is the only requirement.
ITAT Delhi held that granting of single approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act for difference assessment years and that too mechanically without application of mind is not sustainable. Accordingly, entire proceedings initiated u/s. 153C quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable as income is estimated on the basis of gross profit rate. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) set aside and appeal stands allowed.
Delhi ITAT sets aside ₹42.94 lakh tax additions, ruling Section 153C incorrectly applied. Seized documents must “pertain” not “belong,” and Section 292C presumption doesn’t extend to third parties.
Madras High Court held that period of limitation for issuing notice under section 153C of the Income Tax Act to person other than searched person shall be date of receiving books of accounts or documents seized by AO having jurisdiction over such other person.
By returning the loan, the assessee has only utilised the loan for the purpose of business and repaid the same. Merely because some operator has managed the affairs and all the transactions cannot be labelled as non-genuine.
Mumbai ITAT remands Shankarlal Shantilal Mali’s appeal on unexplained cash deposits of over 1 crore for AY 2014-15 to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Supreme Court rules 2015 amendment to Income Tax Act’s Section 153C, broadening third-party assessment, is not retrospective; applies only to searches after June 1, 2015.
