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...
The SC dismissed Revenue appeals holding reassessment notices unsustainable as the issue stood concluded by an earlier binding judgment. The ruling reinforces adherence to settled law in reopening cases.
The court set aside reassessment orders and notices as the issue was already covered by an earlier judgment. Consequential proceedings were also nullified, with other rights kept open.
The High Court held that a reassessment notice issued without a manual or digital signature violates Section 282A of the Income-tax Act. Such an unsigned notice is invalid in law, rendering all consequential proceedings unsustainable.
The SC refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling that reassessment notices issued on incorrect facts and without supporting material were invalid. The key takeaway is that mechanical reopening cannot survive judicial scrutiny.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings are invalid when notices are issued in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist, rendering the entire assessment void.
Saluja Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ranchi) The ITAT Ranchi quashed the reassessment for AY 2013–14, holding that the reasons recorded for reopening were fundamentally flawed and factually incorrect. The assessee’s original assessment had been completed under section 143(3) after detailed scrutiny of share application money and share premium, including issuance of […]
The Tribunal held that reopening completed scrutiny assessments beyond four years is invalid when reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. The key takeaway is that Section 147’s first proviso is mandatory and cannot be bypassed.
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by relying on COVID-era extensions was invalid due to procedural lapses. As a result, the entire reassessment and addition were set aside.
The Court held that reassessment is not barred by change of opinion where the original issue was dropped due to absence of evidence. Subsequent reopening based on new material was found legally sustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment actions taken by the faceless assessment centre before the notified date were without authority. The final assessment order was therefore held invalid.
