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 : The Gujarat High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 after finding that a loose paper seized from a third...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that a common satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without year-wise incriminating material co...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer failed to record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that a single satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without identifying year-wise incriminating...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that a single consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without year-wise incriminatin...
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 Kolkata held that in case where search has not been conducted upon the assessee, then penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed.
The ITAT Delhi has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in the case of ACIT vs. Cogent Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was dismissed based on the lack of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act due to the absence of incriminating material. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was also found to be unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi has ruled that additions made under Section 153C of Income Tax Act cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during a search and seizure operation.
Delhi High Court held that case can duly be transferred from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to Central Circle by way of passing order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on some dummy name without incriminating material reflecting name of the assessee is unjustified.
ITAT Bangalore held that any proceedings taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative. However, penalty order passed in the name of death person after his death is invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment order passed on non-existing entity (dissolved company) is liable to be quashed as the Assessing Officer has the knowledge of the dissolution of the company.
ITAT Hyderabad held that statement of a third party already recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act cannot be considered as an incriminating document for the purpose of making the addition u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessment made u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act beyond the six assessment year is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Merely the parties agreed to not to charge/pay interest on loan will not vitiate the genuineness of such loan transaction unless and until the revenue brought some cogent material on record to prove that such transaction of loan is not genuine.
