Income Tax : Delhi HC rules in PCIT Vs Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., ITA 579/2018, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in tax assessme...
Income Tax : Explore the intricacies of invoking Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, as clarified by the Delhi High Court, regarding the posses...
Income Tax : Delve into the provisions of Income Tax Act Sections 153A & 153C, governing assessments after search or requisition. Learn from co...
Income Tax : Learn about Section 147 to 153 Income Escaping Assessment and Reopening of Cases Under Income Tax Act, 1961. Get guidance on the p...
CA, CS, CMA : Discover the major changes in ITR forms for FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-2025). Highlights include new sections for retirement benefit acco...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court dismisses Revenue’s appeal as unsigned excel sheet lacks corroboration in S. 153C Income Tax Act proceedings....
Income Tax : Read the Kerala High Court judgment on income tax assessments involving Sunny Jacob Jewellers. Analysis includes AO's authority un...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore ruled that income tax additions can't be based solely on unsubstantiated loose slips, emphasizing the need for ...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court rules that reassessment actions post-2021 searches must meet the First Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Income Ta...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court rules Section 153C assessments beyond the 10-year limit unsustainable, quashing notices for AY 2013-14. Key judgm...
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 Delhi held that addition based on incriminating material found during the search carried out of ‘some other person’ i.e. third person/ party and assessing the same by invoking provision of section 147 instead of section 153C is unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that in the present case AO himself referred the matter for special audit u/s 142(2A), however, report of special auditor was later rejected without assigning any reasons for the same is in explicable.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax beyond six Assessment Year immediately preceding the Assessment year from the date of recording of satisfaction note/ handling over of relevant material is not in accordance with law.
Discover the major changes in ITR forms for FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-2025). Highlights include new sections for retirement benefit accounts, disclosure of arrears, updates on Trading Account sections, and provisions for reporting Virtual Digital Asset (VDA) profits. Stay prepared for filing your ITR with insights into changes specific to ITR-1, ITR-2, ITR-3, ITR-4, ITR-5, ITR-6, and ITR-7.
ITAT Delhi held that presumption u/s. 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act is only against the person in whose possession the search material is found and not against any other person. Addition based on dumb documents without corroborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
Gujarat High Court held that since the order passed by the Appellate Authority has attained finality and no demand is outstanding against the appellant, it is unjustified to withhold the seized gold. Accordingly, directed to release the remaining gold at the earlier.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that when AO of searched person and other person is same, there is no mandatory requirement for AO of searched person to record satisfaction of material having found belonging to the person for valid jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as the assessee being non-resident, income has been invested in India and not arisen in India.
Held that in the absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings, the additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act are without jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held that the income portion of the on-money is assessable in the year in which the sale of concerned flat is declared by the assessee.
