Income Tax : The ruling clarifies that unauthenticated digital chats and screenshots cannot form the sole basis of tax additions without proper...
Income Tax : Examine the legal disputes surrounding Section 153D approvals for tax assessments, including court rulings on mechanical approvals...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that WhatsApp chats indicating suppressed production for one month could not be extrapolated to the entire fin...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that a common satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without year-wise incriminating material co...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that contradictory third-party statements and unverified allegations cannot form the sole basis for taxing alleg...
Income Tax : The Kerala High Court remanded the matter after finding that the ITAT failed to expressly adjudicate the challenge to the validity...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were invalid where the case was based on search material ...
Additions under Sections 68 and 69C were set aside after the Tribunal found the mandatory approval to be a mere formality. The ruling reinforces that Section 153D approval is not a procedural ritual.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits. The matter was remanded to ensure proper consideration after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Delhi held that for an unabated year, additions under section 153A require incriminating material. A seized loose sheet and retracted statements lacked corroboration, leading to deletion of the ₹100 crore addition.
ITAT Patna held that consolidated approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act granted in mechanical manner by JCIT without application of mind is invalid and hence assessment framed thereon is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition made on the basis of third-party WhatsApp chat without any incriminating material is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Emphasising strict compliance, the Tribunal ruled that assessments under section 153A without prior section 153D approval are invalid. Cross-objections became infructuous once Revenue appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that a common, perfunctory sanction under Section 153D is invalid. The key takeaway is that lack of independent application of mind vitiates search assessments entirely.
It was ruled that granting a single, common approval for multiple assessment years violates the mandate of Section 153D. Each assessment year requires separate and conscious examination by the approving authority.
The Tribunal clarified that approval under section 153D is an administrative safeguard and need not contain elaborate reasoning. Allegations of mechanical approval fail without concrete evidence of non-application of mind.
The tribunal held that assessment under section 153C cannot be initiated without seized material belonging to or relating to the assessee. Third-party statements and assumptions, without incriminating evidence, were held insufficient to confer jurisdiction
