Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : AY 2015-16 assessment under Section 153C held time-barred. Judicial rulings confirm six-year limit runs from handing over of seize...
Income Tax : Learn why a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is legally invalid under Section 153C of the Income Tax A...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assump...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was invalid where it was based on third-party search material. It ruled that Se...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The Court held that a 21-month delay in recording the satisfaction note violates the requirement of immediacy. It ruled that such ...
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 issue under consideration is whether the issuing notice u/s 153C to the person other than person against whom search is initiated, but without submitting satisfaction note is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee is correct in stating that cognizance taken under section 153A of the Act is illegal at the end of the A.O.?
Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the omission on the part of the AO not providing opportunity to assessee to cross examine of two witnesses and held that it was a serious flaw and since the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order this omission on the part of AO makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of Principles of natural justice.
Mahalaxmi Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find, the AO, in the instant case, has made addition of Rs.17,15,113/- for assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.30 lacs for assessment year 2010-11 in the orders passed u/s 153A r.w. section 143(3). A perusal of the assessment order shows that the addition of Rs.16,77,983/- out […]
Sree Lakshmi Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We have already examined the legal position with regard to validity of initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act de hors incriminating material found in the course of search which belong or relate to the assessee. Admittedly, no such incriminating material was found in respect of any of […]
whether Assessment year in respect of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act to be same 6 years in the case of other person, for which the proceedings u/s 153A is initiated in the case of connected searched person?
The issue under consideration is whether Assessemnt order u/s 153C issued in the name of Amalgamated Company will be considered as valid?
The issue under consideration is whether the assessment u/s 153A can be considered as valid even if no incriminating material found during the course of search?
Akarsh Residence Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per the facts noted by learned CIT(A) in the relevant paras of his order as reproduced above, it comes out that search was carried out in the case of M/s. Adarsh Developers and incriminating documents were found and seized in the course of search and those […]
DCIT Vs Venus Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The common grievance in all these appeals relates to the deletion of the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained share capital and premium though quantum may defer in each year. Vide application dated 30.01.2020, the assessee has invoked Rule 27 of the […]
