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 Court reviewed bogus purchases of Rs. 4.65 crore, confirming the purchases as unverifiable but reduced the income estimation from 12.5% to 8%. The appeal was partly allowed, providing relief to the assessee.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income already taxed under a proprietorship cannot be taxed again in a partnership, deleting the estimated 2% addition by CIT(A).
ITAT Delhi upheld that failure to pass a speaking order on objections under GKN Driveshafts makes reassessment void, dismissing Revenue’s appeal for AY 2012-13
The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid as NFAC completed the process without issuing a mandatory notice under section 148A. It ruled that an assessment is void when the jurisdictional notice is issued by one authority but finalized by another.
The ITAT ruled that a reassessment notice issued by a non-jurisdictional officer is void, quashing a demand of ₹1.01 crore and invalidating the assessment.
The ITAT Mumbai invalidated the reopening of an income-tax assessment under section 148, holding that no new tangible material was found. Interest income from co-operative banks and other receipts had already been considered in the original assessment.
Tribunal dismisses AO’s addition after assessing evidence, books of accounts, VAT returns, and confirmed ledgers, confirming the transactions’ authenticity.
ITAT Mumbai invalidated the reassessment for AY 2008-09 because the notice under section 148 was issued after the statutory limitation period and contained a clerical error in the assessment year. The ruling underscores the necessity of strict procedural compliance for reassessment.
The Tribunal held that a reopening made after three years is void when approval is granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/CCIT. The entire reassessment and related disallowance were struck down.
The Tribunal held that AO must recompute capital gains considering purchase cost, indexation, and stamp duty, instead of merely adding the section 50C deemed value difference.
