The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlights the extended filing timeline and the revised rules governing reassessment proceedings.
The article explains the Manufacturing and Other Operations in Warehouse Regulations (MOOWR) scheme introduced under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 to reduce the working capital burden on manufacturers importing capital goods and raw materials. Under the scheme, customs duty is deferred at the time of import, enabling businesses to improve cash flow without any […]
The Court rejected the challenge to the search conducted under Section 132 and upheld the legality of the search proceedings. It, however, permitted affected petitioners to pursue compensation before the appropriate forum regarding the handling of a medical emergency during the search.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked pecuniary jurisdiction where the returned income exceeded the limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. The additions on merits were not examined.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 143(2). As a result, the assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and completed the assessment without lawful transfer of the case. The reassessment order was set aside.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessments were invalid because the ACIT was not shown to have jurisdiction under CBDT Instructions or the Income-tax Act. The assessment orders were quashed without examining the merits.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessment was invalid because the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Revenue’s appeal on merits became infructuous.
Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making disallowances beyond the selected issues without following the prescribed CBDT procedure. Such additions were held to be unsustainable.
The Madras High Court held that courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatures without necessarily requiring expert evidence. It restored the Trial Courts decree after finding the comparison legally valid.
