Income Tax : Understand the statutory time limits for issuing income-tax notices and completing assessments under the Income-tax Act. The guide...
Income Tax : This article explains why reassessment proceedings may be invalid if the Assessing Officer merely relies on Investigation Wing rep...
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 : 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 : Bombay HC upheld ITAT's order, holding reassessment under Section 148 unsustainable as full reasons were not supplied and relied o...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 were invalid because the sanction was granted by the PCIT ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after the surviving limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court were invalid....
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that reassessment cannot be sustained merely because of high-value bank transactions without evidence ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Comm...
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 quashes Section 148A(3) order against Huawei, directing the AO to pass a fresh, reasoned order on the non-resident’s interest income and Section 194LC compliance.
ITAT Mumbai quashes reassessment (AY 13-14, 14-15) as AO missed the Rajeev Bansal-mandated “surviving limitation.” S. 149 prevails over S. 148A procedural timelines.
ITAT Jaipur ruled that reassessment under Section 148 based solely on Investigation Wing’s report without independent verification is invalid and void ab initio.
ITAT Jaipur quashed the reassessment order against Late Shri Jitendra Nagar, ruling the AO used the wrong authority (PCIT) for sanction under Section 151(ii), following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal precedent.
Delhi High Court dismisses petitions, reiterating that both Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officers (FAO) have concurrent jurisdiction to issue Section 148 reassessment notices, holding prior High Court ruling (T.K.S. Builders) is binding.
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.”
