The Income Tax Act, 2025 replaces old reassessment provisions with Sections 279 to 286 and increases reopening timelines in certain cases. Tax professionals must carefully examine applicability based on the relevant tax year.
The article explains how departmental GST audits can identify compliance gaps, strengthen internal controls, and reduce future litigation and penalty exposure through early corrective action.
The amended Finance Bill 2026 abolishes the Tax Recovery Officer’s power to arrest and detain taxpayers for recovery of dues. The move is positioned as a taxpayer-friendly reform aimed at reducing coercive recovery measures.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without proving cessation of liability. The Tribunal found that family loans continued to remain payable and were merely reclassified in the capital account.
ITAT Raipur held that additions based on server data, search records, and investigation reports cannot survive if such material is not supplied to the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that denial of rebuttal opportunity violates principles of natural justice.
ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment in search cases requires prior approval under section 148B before passing the order. Since the department failed to obtain the prescribed approval, the assessment was quashed as invalid in law.
The ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of a new flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement does not amount to receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that assessment orders passed under Section 62 stood deemed withdrawn after the taxpayer filed GSTR-3B returns along with applicable late fees. Bank attachments based on those orders were also set aside.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking an electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A without a pre-decisional hearing was unsustainable and directed immediate unblocking.
The Karnataka High Court held that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not mandate a pre-decisional hearing before provisional attachment of bank accounts. The Court ruled that statutory safeguards are available through post-decisional remedies under Rule 159(5).
