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...
Goods and Services Tax : The court held that once late fee is imposed for delayed annual return filing, a further general penalty is not permissible. Secti...
Income Tax : The issue was whether an assessment could be reopened after four years. The Court held that full disclosure by the taxpayer barred...
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 issue was deletion of additions on unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits. The tribunal upheld deletion, holding ...
Income Tax : The issue involved dismissal of appeal due to delay and non-appearance. The tribunal condoned the delay citing medical reasons and...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening inval...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment notice issued without approval from the correct authority is valid. The tribunal held it invali...
Income Tax : The Court held that reassessment proceedings must be initiated within the statutory time limit. It found the notice issued after t...
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...
Court held that an income tax assessment issued after the assessee’s death is null and void, emphasizing the legal heir’s right to contest the order.
ITAT condoned a 23-day delay and quashed the ex-parte order of NFAC, sending the appeal back for fresh adjudication. Appeals must be decided on merits even if delayed, prioritizing fairness.
ITAT held that the reassessment notice issued after the assessee’s death raised jurisdictional issues. Legal grounds like issuance to a deceased must be adjudicated before proceeding with assessments.
The order was remanded after ITAT found the CIT(A) overlooked core issues including validity of belated 148 return, applicability of 153C, and cross-examination rights.
ITAT Kolkata quashed a reassessment order, holding that NFAC had no jurisdiction before the formal notification of Section 151A. The ₹2.14 crore addition was deleted, highlighting that faceless assessments cannot be retroactively enforced.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a section 263 revision cannot proceed if the AO issuing section 148 notice lacks territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to first decide jurisdictional validity.
The Tribunal allowed a 193-day delayed appeal, emphasizing that non-deliberate delay should not bar hearing on merits. The assessee can now present his case and have the appeal adjudicated substantively.
Assessee proved long-term capital gains of ₹1 crore from Mishkafin Finance shares via broker notes, bank statements, and STT-paid transactions. Addition under section 69A was deleted due to lack of evidence.
ITAT Jabalpur held that CIT(A) cannot blindly follow PCIT directions under section 263. Appellate authorities must independently consider evidence and objections before confirming additions.
ITAT held that Section 263 requires the PCIT to conduct independent inquiry before declaring an order erroneous. Since the PCIT relied only on assumptions of inadequate inquiry, the revision was invalid.
