<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 8 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784252</link>
    <description>Search assessments for two AYs were held time-barred under s 153B because the legally effective conclusion of search was the panchanama drawn when the authorised officer completed physical search and left the premises; subsequent panchanamas prepared only to lift restraints under s 132(3), without fresh authorisation and without any further search activity, could not extend limitation, particularly as the restraints lacked recorded &quot;not practicable&quot; reasons and were revoked beyond CBDT&#039;s binding one-month directive. Consequently, both assessment orders were quashed as barred by limitation. Independently, approval under s 153D was held mechanical, showing no examination of seized material, rendering the assessments unsustainable. On merits, additions/disallowances (alleged unaccounted receipts, construction, interest, cash payments, trustee-related repayment, pandemic/renovation expenses, donation, depreciation) were deleted for want of cogent evidence and incorrect application of non-trust provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 12:58:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 8 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784252</link>
      <description>Search assessments for two AYs were held time-barred under s 153B because the legally effective conclusion of search was the panchanama drawn when the authorised officer completed physical search and left the premises; subsequent panchanamas prepared only to lift restraints under s 132(3), without fresh authorisation and without any further search activity, could not extend limitation, particularly as the restraints lacked recorded &quot;not practicable&quot; reasons and were revoked beyond CBDT&#039;s binding one-month directive. Consequently, both assessment orders were quashed as barred by limitation. Independently, approval under s 153D was held mechanical, showing no examination of seized material, rendering the assessments unsustainable. On merits, additions/disallowances (alleged unaccounted receipts, construction, interest, cash payments, trustee-related repayment, pandemic/renovation expenses, donation, depreciation) were deleted for want of cogent evidence and incorrect application of non-trust provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>