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 ITAT Jaipur ruled in ACIT vs Naresh Jain, addressing Section 115BBE, unexplained income, and the benefit of telescoping in tax assessments.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed investment in shares and unsecured loans merely based on observation made by DCIT without independent inquiry by AO is unjustified and hence the addition is liable to be deleted.
Since the addition pertained to the “receipt of money” from the sale of flats by the assessee and these amounts did not represent the actual receipts in the hands of the assessee, they could not be subjected to tax.
Since there was no failure on the part of assessee to fully and truthfully disclose material facts therefore, assessment under sections 147-148 was not valid as the specific provisions of Section 153C were deemed to take precedence over the general provisions of Section 147.
ITAT Ahmedabad quashes assessment for AY 2011-12 in Ushaben Jayantilal Patel vs ITO case, ruling on jurisdiction and procedural errors.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act based on material found during search of another company is untenable as proceedings should be initiated u/s. 153C and not u/s. 147.
ITAT Mumbai held that normal period of limitation i.e. 3 years will apply in case of reopening of assessment where escapement of income was below Rs. 50 Lakhs and extended period of 10 years will apply only in case of concealment of income of Rs. 50 Lakhs or more.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that AO had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act beyond permissible period of six years from date of receipt of books/ documents by AO.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards share application money, as unexplained credit, deleted as identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders proved.
Rajasthan HC dismisses writ against Section 153C notice post-assessment, advising the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies instead. Appeal within 30 days allowed.
