Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : A detailed look at how the Finance Act, 2021 reshaped Sections 147–151, introduced Section 148A, and reduced limitation periods ...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill, 2026 clarifies who can issue notices under sections 148 and 148A. It confirms that only jurisdictional Assessing...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
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 : The ITAT condoned the delay after finding that assessment and appellate notices were sent to incorrect email addresses. The ruling...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that the full value of unaccounted sales cannot automatically be treated as taxable income. It restricted the ...
Income Tax : Addition of capital gain was deleted as impugned land being agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits and ...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the Assessing Officer made additions unrelated to the reasons...
Income Tax : The Tribunal quashed the reassessment after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to issue notice under Section 143(2). The de...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 29/2024-Central Excise rescinds six 2022 excise notifications in the public interest, effective immediately. Deta...
Income Tax : Learn how to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act in e-Verification cases. Detailed instructions for Assessing Off...
Income Tax : Explore e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). Detailed guidelines for AOs under I...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid where the alleged escaped income was less than ₹50 lakh. The consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Amritsar ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the officer completing the assessment had not issued the notice under Section 148. The reassessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on a different interpretation of the same material examined during the original assessment amounted to a change of opinion and could not justify reopening.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not validly refer the property valuation to the DVO for Assessment Year 2012-13 under the unamended Section 55A. Since the valuation reference lacked legal authority, the addition to long-term capital gains could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the amended Section 55A could not be applied to a land sale completed before 01.07.2012. Since the DVO reference was not valid under the law then in force, the capital gains addition based on that valuation could not stand.
The Court held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A where the assessees registered valuer had reported a higher value. The reassessment based on such reference was therefore held impermissible.
The Department maintained that search powers could be exercised where there was reason to believe that relevant documents and undisclosed assets were being kept at the premises. The matter involved both personal and third-party records.
The ITAT Mumbai held that purchases cannot be treated as entirely bogus merely based on Sales Tax Department information when the assessee produced invoices, bank statements, stock records, and delivery challans. The Tribunal directed that only the profit element embedded in the alleged non-genuine purchases, if any, should be taxed.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings cannot survive when reasons recorded for reopening demonstrate non-application of mind. Following the Delhi High Court’s findings in the preceding year, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that an investigation report against a supplier is only a starting point for inquiry and not conclusive proof against the assessee. The key takeaway is that additions require independent evidence relating to the assessee’s own transactions
