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 held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act refrains from incorporating a specific provision permitting the filing of a cross-objection. Thus, cross objection would not be maintainable.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition under section 69C towards unexplained expenditure is liable to be deleted due to lack of corroborative and strong evidence. Accordingly, appeal of the department dismissed.
During the course of search and seizure operation, several incriminating documents related to the assessee were found and seized from the residential premises of Shri Prashant Bongirwar.
Interest paid on late payment of TDS was not an expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further it was a payment, which was in the form of tax, so it was not an allowable expenditure.
In pursuance of search, notice u/s.153A was issued and in response, assessee also filed its return of income. AO noted that assessee had taken loan from four parties during the years under consideration.
Rajasthan High Court stays final order in Radha Mohan Maheshwari’s reassessment case, citing time-barred notice under Section 148. Proceedings may continue, pending reply.
Rajasthan High Court stays final order in Ram Babu Agarwal’s reassessment case, citing time-barred notice under Section 148. Proceedings may continue, pending reply.
Bombay High Court held that once search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act is the foundation of the case, assessment could be initiated only under section 153A/ 153C. Thus, initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that Section 153C as application at relevant time didn’t contemplate two tier recordal of satisfaction. Thus, proceedings u/s. 153C couldn’t have been triggered mechanically without formation of opinion by AO of non-searched person.
It was held that considering the provisions of CBDT Circular No. 1916 and the explanation provided by the assessee, the seized gold jewellery up to the specified thresholds for each family member should be treated as explained.
