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...
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed revenue’s appeal by concluding that approach of CIT(A) in singularly dismissing each piece of evidence, we find, is totally incorrect. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter of bogus accommodation entry afresh.
ITAT Delhi held that based on incriminating materials unearthed during the course of search, proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act needs to be initiated. Hence, initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 illegal and void ab initio.
Assessee argued that AO lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147/148 as the information derived from the search should had been assessed under Section 153C.
Assessee had not challenged the validity of reopening, though for the first time, assessee had challenged the action of AO by taking plea that AO should have assessed assessee under section 153C and not section 147/148.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay of 85 days in filing of appeal before CIT(A) condoned on medical grounds. Accordingly, matter remitted back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
Assessee had given reasons that as per the previous counsel, late Shri R.R. Jain (C.A.) had given advice no separate appeal against the order passed u/s 263 was filed before ITAT.
Delhi High Court held that assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act impermissible unless it is satisfied that document / seized material belonged to the assessee. Thus, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Pune ruled on multiple appeals in Bharati Vidyapeeths case, addressing issues on exemptions under Sections 11, 13, 10(23C), and validity of Section 153C notices.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 towards unexplained income rightly deleted as no adverse incriminating material/ document found in the premises of the searched person. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that as AO didn’t assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, recourse to section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment proceedings justified. Accordingly, appeal by revenue allowed.
