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 allows Sukhmeet Kaur to reply to SCN, underlining the relevant stage to present facts under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court nullifies reassessment order for Siemens Industry Software Nv, recognizing rectified TDS return. Explore the full case details here.
Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Sushil Jaiswal Vs Union of India – order under Section 148A(d) set aside due to denial of personal hearing violating principles of natural justice.
The Delhi High Court recently dealt with two writ petitions (W.P.(C) 6061/2023 and W.P.(C) 6062/2023) concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The issue raised in these petitions was similar to the one in another case titled “Harvinder Singh (HUF) v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Agasthya Auto Products LLP filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal raised multiple grounds, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Calcutta High Court asserts that the denial of the opportunity for cross-examination and failure to provide copies of evidence render an order invalid under the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court orders a fresh investigation in the Rajnish Yadav Vs ITO case, pertaining to allegations of bogus purchases under the Income Tax Act, citing lack of furnished information to the petitioner.
In the case of Kothari Credit (India) Limited v. Union of India and others, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Supreme Court’s ruling sets a precedent on reassessment proceedings, stating no action will be taken on completed or unabated assessments without incriminating material.
Calcutta High Court held that considering the provisions, order passed u/s 148A(d) is within three years and accordingly, Principal CIT (PCIT) and not the Principal Chief CIT (PCCIT) is ‘Specified Authority’ for approval of the same. Thus, AO rightly took approval from Principal CIT.
