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...
Since AO made addition under section 153 on the basis of documents seized in case of third party but without mentioning of assesse’s name in any legal paper and non-establishment of relationship with searched party, therefore, the same was invalid.
PCIT Vs N.S. Software (Firm) (Delhi High Court) It is now a settled proposition of law that even if AO for the person from whose premises documents were seized is the same as the AO for the person to whom document belonged, separate satisfaction notes must be recorded. In the instant case, the AO’s note […]
Mere hand written paper could not be construed as books of account or documents in terms of section 153C and such documents having no signature of assessee-company or its employees could not be stated as belonging to assessee, so as to invoke section 153C.
Recording of satisfaction by AO of person searched is a condition precedent for AO of other person to acquire jurisdiction and unless jurisdictional condition is satisfied, there can be no question of making assessment or reassessment in the case of such other person.
Where books of account and other documents belonging to other person, i.e., the assessee as recovered from searched party did not indicate receipt of unaccounted money by the assessee, such books and documents could not be considered as incriminating material for initiation of proceedings under section 153C against the assessee.
Shri Balaji Builders Kakinada Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Merely because books of account could not be traced at the time of survey/search, it could not be presumed that the books of account were not maintained unless all the efforts were made by AO. Further As per the provisions of section 153C of the Act, it […]
While dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act without jurisdiction when documents seized not belonged to the assessee is invalid.
Assumption of jurisdiction over assessee under section 153C on the basis of statement of searched person, however, seized documents making no reference of either the assessee or any transaction entered into by it, was highly misplaced and, therefore, set aside.
In the present case, the fact that the entire ‘undisclosed income’ was declared by the appellant in the statement recorded during search and the same was also disclosed in the return filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A, clearly goes to show the bona fides of the appellant, not warranting imposition of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act.
There is no dispute that the search was conducted in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration therefore the provisions of Section 153C are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration however, the mention of this Section in the order is only a mistake which is covered under the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act.
