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 : The ruling clarifies that unauthenticated digital chats and screenshots cannot form the sole basis of tax additions without proper...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that granting of mandatory approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act by Additional Commissioner of Income ...
Income Tax : The ITAT upheld ₹90 lakh addition as the assessee failed to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The r...
Income Tax : In the absence of proper compliance with Section 65B and failure to establish a clear chain of custody, the digital evidence relie...
Income Tax : The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limi...
The Department could not produce a single document seized from the assessee, relying only on third-party statements, which are not incriminating material. The JCIT’s same-day clearance of multiple assessments without analysis led to the assessments being quashed.
The JCIT granted approval despite receiving only draft orders and no supporting evidence, demonstrating a mechanical process. The Tribunal held that such superficial approval violates judicial standards, leading to the quashing of all assessments.
The Tribunal held that section 69A requires unexplained money or valuables to be found; since only documents showing commission were seized, invoking section 69A was invalid. Only 20% of gross commission was allowed as taxable income.
ITAT held that the AO’s verification of seized material, statements, and bank records constituted proper enquiry. Key takeaway: Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT prefers a different view.
The ITAT held that approvals granted under Section 153D without genuine application of mind are invalid, quashing multiple assessment orders. Key takeaway: mechanical or blanket approvals violate procedural requirements and render assessments null.
The Tribunal ruled that once an assessment under Section 153A is approved under Section 153D, it cannot be revised under Section 263. This reinforces limits on PCIT’s revisional powers.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of stale information results into change of opinion and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and reopening is quashed.
The ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material found during search and set aside assessments for AYs 2013–14 and 2014–15.
The tribunal annulled assessment proceedings, holding that the approval under Section 153D was granted in a mechanical, non-application-of-mind manner without separate consideration for each year.
ITAT Chandigarh quashed an assessment order made under Section 143(3) for a pre-search year, holding that after a Section 132 search, the assessment must mandatorily proceed under Section 148 with proper Section 148B approval. The tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s continuation of the scrutiny post-search was a jurisdictional error, making the assessment void ab initio.
