Income Tax : A guide to India's block assessment tax provisions from the Finance Act 2024. Understand pending assessments, undisclosed income, ...
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 Bombay High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C were barred by limitation as the assessments were not completed wit...
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 ...
ITAT held In the case of ACIT vs. Raj Kumar Jalan that in view of the proposition laid down by the Honble Delhi high Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Bhusan Jain and others in ITA No.648/09 and 669/2009 etc order dated 08.01.2015
Hon’ble HC did not find any merit in the ground of delay in issuance of notice. Court further remitted the matters ITAT to decide afresh on merits. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears, particularly the contextual facts discussed
That once the AO became aware that the property was not owned by the assessee and that he had received the amount on someone else’s behalf, notice could not have been issued under Section 158BD. He urged that this Court should not interfere with the ITAT’s order on this ground alone.
Hon’ble High Court is of the opinion that the note written by the AO lacks satisfaction as required u/s 158BD.In other words there is lack of the satisfaction of the AO that there is material that the respondent assessee had undisclosed income.
Revenue has to be vigilant in issuing notice to the third party under Section 158 BD, immediately after the completion of assessment of the searched person, this Court is of the opinion that a delay ranging between 10 months of 1 ½ years cannot be considered contemporaneous to assessment proceedings.
