Income Tax : The Income Tax Act, 2025 replaces old reassessment provisions with Sections 279 to 286 and increases reopening timelines in certai...
Income Tax : Explains how routine approvals under Section 151 can nullify reassessment proceedings. The key takeaway is that lack of applicatio...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that reassessment cannot run parallel to ongoing scrutiny proceedings. Such action was declared without jurisdiction...
Income Tax : The High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 were time-barred after computing the surviving limitation as clar...
Income Tax : A detailed look at how the Finance Act, 2021 reshaped Sections 147–151, introduced Section 148A, and reduced limitation periods ...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
Income Tax : Humble Representation for modification of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act relating to Sanction for issue of Notice under sec. 14...
Income Tax : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association requested CBDT to issue Clarification in respect of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Se...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A(d...
Income Tax : The Telangana High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after implementation...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC held that reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 was valid where Assessing Officer received fresh investigation materi...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid where the Assessing Officer sought to make ...
Income Tax : The department has identified high-risk cases through its Insight Portal for AYs 2022-25. It directs officers to initiate reassess...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
Corporate Law : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association (W.B.) Unit Date: 02.02.2023. To The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, W...
Income Tax : CBDT directed that cases reopened u/s 147/148A in consonance with Judgement of SC in case of UoI vs. Ashish Agarwal & CBDT instruc...
Income Tax : Consequent to order passed by Allahabad High Court passing severe strictures and proposing to levy exemplary cost of Rs 50 lakhs i...
Delhi High Court held that under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and Faceless Assessing Officer possess concurrent jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices, reaffirming its earlier ruling in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Neena Wadhwa v. PCIT upholds the concurrent power of both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) to issue reassessment notices under Section 148, citing the binding precedent of T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd..
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that reopening an assessment u/s 147 is invalid if based on general, unverified portal information lacking a “live link” to the assessee’s escaped income. Case dismissed.
Delhi HC dismissed a writ against a reassessment order, citing the Supreme Court’s Chhabil Dass Agarwal precedent, directing the taxpayer to use the statutory appeal remedy before the CIT(A).
ITAT Delhi sets aside reassessment, ruling the PCIT’s ritualistic S. 151 approval for S. 148 notice invalidates the proceedings; “mechanical approval is fatal.”
ITAT Delhi held that reopening under Section 148 on an incorrect PAN and with mechanical sanction by PCIT is invalid, quashing the Rs. 3.50 crore addition under Section 68 and setting aside reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT Mumbai quashed the reassessment notice against Saif Ali Khan (AY 2016-17), holding the AO improperly obtained approval from the Pr. CIT instead of the Pr. CCIT for reopening beyond the three-year limit.
ITAT Delhi ruled that an AO’s belief based on incorrect assumptions—such as the non-filing of a return—cannot form a valid basis for reopening. Cash deposits fully disclosed in audited accounts were held legitimate.
ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment orders against three companies. The court ruled that an AO cannot rely solely on a retracted statement to initiate reopening proceedings.
The ITAT ruled that a reassessment order passed in the name of a deceased assessee is a curable irregularity, not void ab initio, provided the initial Section 148 notice was validly issued during the assessee’s lifetime.
