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...
The Tribunal held that although transportation proof was lacking and the supplier was unverifiable, accepted sales established that trading had occurred. It ruled that only the profit element of 2% could be added, and the addition could not be taxed under section 115BBE.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment cannot be added without confronting the assessee with the Koinex transaction data relied upon by the AO. Matter remanded for fresh verification.
ITAT holds that ignoring a valid online reply and supporting records vitiates reassessment; AO must first verify whether deposits were already in books before taxing. Key takeaway: non-consideration of evidence makes additions unsustainable.
The ITAT held that notices under Section 148 issued by JAO post-29.03.2022 lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment was annulled, emphasizing only Faceless Assessing Officers can issue such notices.
Parasnath Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Dehradun) Rule 29 Rescues Assessee- Loans Need Fresh Look: ITAT Admits New Evidence, Sends Rs.90 Lakh Addition Back to AO Assessee appealed against NFAC order dated 08.10.2024 sustaining addition of Rs.90,00,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE towards unsecured loans from M/s Yogya Shippings Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50 lakh) & M/s […]
The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that the appeal could not be dismissed in limine. CIT(A) must issue a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6).
The Tribunal condoned a 28-day delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The assessee had failed to comply with notices and did not provide evidence for deductions. All additions made by the Assessing Officer, including capital gains and salary income, were upheld.
The Tribunal held that donations to an institution whose approval was withdrawn retrospectively cannot qualify for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii). Reopening was upheld, and bona fide belief offered no protection.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to challenge both the reopening notice u/s 148 and the addition of ₹2.25 Cr. NFAC’s ex-parte dismissal was found inappropriate in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned a 27-day delay after accepting the assessee’s affidavit explaining non-intentional default and lack of familiarity with e-proceedings. It held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the first appeal ex parte without addressing merits. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with full opportunity of hearing.
