Income Tax : Explore the Bombay High Court's ruling on the invalidity of a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, f...
Income Tax : Learn about Section 147 to 153 Income Escaping Assessment and Reopening of Cases Under Income Tax Act, 1961. Get guidance on the p...
Income Tax : Explore legality of Section 148A(b) & Section 148A(d) proceedings post Finance Act 2021. Understand implications of local assessm...
Income Tax : In a recent case, Madras High Court rules on reassessment proceedings against a struck-off company, highlighting the need for rev...
Income Tax : Understand the critical role of the initial enquiry under Section 148A(a) for taxpayer protection in income tax assessments. Explo...
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 : Under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, notices for assessment/reassessment of income of old cases of more than six years fr...
Income Tax : PCIT Vs Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court): Reassessment cannot be solely based on a reevaluation of exi...
Income Tax : Himachal Pradesh High Court quashes reassessment notice for J.B.J. Perfumes Pvt. Ltd. based on 'Change of Opinion'. Learn about th...
Income Tax : Analysis of Swarn Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) on validity of notice u/s 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) vs Faceless...
Income Tax : Learn why a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 beyond the four-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year ...
Income Tax : Reassessment proceedings initiated by officers without jurisdiction and completed by different officers without recording fresh re...
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...
Income Tax : Salient features of new Section 148 to 151A 'i.e. assessment/reassessment procedure of Income Escaping Assessment...
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.
