Income Tax : A guide to India's block assessment tax provisions from the Finance Act 2024. Understand pending assessments, undisclosed income, ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
Income Tax : Punjab & Haryana HC upheld Section 153C notices, holding the satisfaction note was not belated and limitation objections should fi...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of the Section 271D penalty, holding that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment or...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held Section 153C notices invalid as the satisfaction note was not recorded immediately after the searched perso...
Income Tax : The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)’s decision for wrongly quashing assessment due to lack of notice under Section 143(2). It held ...
Income Tax : CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 Several High Courts have held that the provisions of section 153C of the Act are substantially similar/pari-m...
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act solely on the basis of material found by AO of searched person without satisfaction note as prescribed under section 153C is untenable in law.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that transfer of case from Chandigarh to Panaji under section 127 of the Income Tax Act to centralize the assessment of all connected or linked persons at one place is justifiable. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that satisfaction must be recorded contemporaneously or immediately after the searched person’s assessment. Any belated recording invalidates the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a Section 153C notice due to a 22-month delay in recording the satisfaction note, ruling it violated Supreme Court guidelines for immediate post-assessment action.
Court rules partial co-ownership of property constitutes ownership under Section 54F, disallowing exemptions claimed on reinvested capital gains. Tribunal’s earlier allowance set aside.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition made on the basis of documents found from the third party without providing any opportunity of cross-examination is liable to be deleted on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Delhi High Court held that security deposit which is nothing more than sale consideration hence the same used as a devise to postpone tax liability towards an uncertain date. Accordingly, the said question is answered in favour of revenue.
Gujarat High Court held that denial to condoned delay in filing cross-objections without adequate reasoning is not justifiable. Accordingly, order is quashed and delay in filing cross-objection condoned.
The tribunal upheld deletion of ₹45 crore additions where losses from share transactions were disallowed as bogus. It held that all transactions were recorded, disclosed, and supported by evidence.
Reassessment order passed under Section 147/143(3) was quashed on the ground that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued after the assessee filed the return in response to notice under Section 148, rendering the assessment void ab initio.
