The issue was whether reassessment can survive when no addition is made on the stated reasons for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reassessment is invalid, and the AO cannot make unrelated additions.
This update outlines critical compliance deadlines across FEMA, GST, Income Tax, Companies Act, and more for April 2026. It helps businesses track obligations and avoid penalties through timely filings.
ITAT held that reassessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, even if return was filed late. The ruling emphasizes that issuance of notice is mandatory and absence of it makes the assessment void.
ITAT ruled that deduction under Section 54F can be raised during reassessment if it relates to the income under scrutiny. The case clarifies that reassessment scope includes such connected claims.
The document updates tax planning concepts to reflect changes introduced by the Finance Act, 2026 and Income Tax Act, 2025. It clarifies revised statutory references and computational methods. The key takeaway is that tax planning must align with updated legal provisions to remain compliant and accurate.
The Court held that failure to consider a filed reply invalidates the assessment. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with hearing opportunity.
The issue concerns when capital gains become taxable under the law. The framework clarifies that gains are taxed in the year of transfer, with exceptions for specific cases like compensation and conversions. The key takeaway is that timing of transfer is central to determining tax liability.
The Tribunal held that time limits introduced later cannot apply retrospectively to deny amendment requests. The ruling clarifies that exporters can seek corrections for past errors during scheme transitions.
The Court examined whether GST cancellation for non-filing of returns could be reversed. It held that authorities must consider restoration if the taxpayer files pending returns and pays dues. The key takeaway is that compliance can enable reconsideration of cancellation.
The Court examined whether a complaint arising from a family dispute can be entertained in misconduct proceedings. It held that such complaints are maintainable if they disclose professional misconduct.
