The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 were invalid because the sanction was granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, as required under Section 151(ii). The Court quashed both the Section 148A(d) order and the Section 148 notice.
The article explains that a partnership comprising only two partners stands dissolved on the death of one partner under the Partnership Act. It also outlines the tax and compliance implications of carrying on the business until a new firm is constituted.
India has expanded portfolio investment access by allowing any individual resident outside India to invest in listed Indian companies. The amendment widens the investor base while retaining safeguards for sensitive investments and ownership changes.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and conscious satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269ST in the assessment order. The ruling reiterates that such satisfaction is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The Bombay High Court held that Section 122(1A) cannot be invoked against company officials unless the Revenue proves they personally benefited from the transaction and it was undertaken at their instance.
The Supreme Court has remitted reassessment cases for fresh consideration after the retrospective insertion of Section 147A, leaving its validity and constitutional challenge open for adjudication.
Learn the most frequent errors taxpayers make while filing Income Tax Returns for AY 2026-27 and how avoiding them can prevent notices, penalties, and refund delays.
Regulated entities in GIFT City must submit their annual cyber security audit reports by 29 June 2026. The framework requires both reporting compliance and proportionate cyber risk management.
High Courts have held that GST registration cannot be cancelled through mechanical or checkbox-style orders. Authorities must disclose statutory grounds, consider the taxpayer’s reply, and provide clear reasons.
The article explains that retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration cannot, by itself, justify denial of input tax credit. Courts have emphasized that authorities must prove non-genuine transactions or buyer collusion before reversing ITC.
