Income Tax : A guide to India's block assessment tax provisions from the Finance Act 2024. Understand pending assessments, undisclosed income, ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must establish a direct connection between seized material and the assessee’s taxable income...
Income Tax : The Court held that recording satisfaction after a delay of nine months was not immediate as required by law. It upheld quashing o...
Income Tax : The issue was whether third-party diaries and loose papers could establish receipt of unaccounted income. The Tribunal ruled that ...
Income Tax : The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer propose...
Income Tax : Since the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, the assessment collapsed. The ruling a...
The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must establish a direct connection between seized material and the assessee’s taxable income before invoking Section 153C. Mechanical initiation of proceedings for multiple years was declared invalid.
The Court held that recording satisfaction after a delay of nine months was not immediate as required by law. It upheld quashing of assessment proceedings and deletion of undisclosed income addition.
The issue was whether third-party diaries and loose papers could establish receipt of unaccounted income. The Tribunal ruled that such papers, without authorship verification or corroboration, cannot fasten tax liability.
The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
Since the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, the assessment collapsed. The ruling affirms that valid notice by the competent authority is a sine qua non.
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
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.
Madras High Court held that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot review its earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Notably jurisdiction of Tribunal is restricted only to rectify error and not review.
Karnataka High Court held that provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked since the petitioner was a searched person and not a non-searched person / such other person. Accordingly, the proceedings quashed.
