Income Tax : Learn how different types of income tax assessments are conducted under the Income-tax Act. The FAQs explain assessment procedures...
Income Tax : This guide explains who is required to maintain books of account under Section 44AA based on business, profession, turnover, and i...
Income Tax : This guide explains the various assessments under the Income-tax Act, including summary assessment, scrutiny assessment, best judg...
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 : 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 : ITAT Pune held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was approved by the Principal C...
Income Tax : ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with a co-operative bank remained attributable to it...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Comm...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments quashing reassessment notices after noting that the Finance Act, 2026 introduced ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that Section 68 could not be applied to sale proceeds received from investments already recorded in the books in an ...
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 held that the proviso to Section 68 requiring proof of source of source applies only from AY 2013–14. Since the year involved was AY 2008–09, the ₹32.04 crore share capital addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The issue was whether property investment could be treated as unexplained in reassessment proceedings. The ITAT held that where bank trails, NRE accounts, and loan documents fully explain the source, additions cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to a shell concern with no real services is taxable as unexplained credit. Claims that expenditure related to an earlier year were rejected.
Uttarakhand High Court held that order of the Competent Authority granting sanction or approval or refusing to grant sanction or approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 is neither a revisable order, nor an appealable order.
The Tribunal ruled that once the original notice itself is jurisdictionally invalid, later compliance with section 148A is irrelevant. Foundational defects cannot be remedied procedurally.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not disputed, the entire value of alleged bogus purchases cannot be added under section 69C. Only the embedded profit element is taxable.
The Tribunal ruled that AMP expenses incurred by a brand-owning trader cannot be allocated to contract manufacturers without proof of obligation or agreement. Tax incentives enjoyed by related entities alone were held insufficient.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless scheme became mandatory was invalid. The key takeaway is that failure to follow the faceless mechanism nullifies the entire reopening, regardless of merits.
ITAT held that dismissing a ground without reasons violates appellate duty. The 43B disallowance was remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication.
The judgment reiterates that reassessment cannot be initiated merely because the AO takes a different view later. Jurisdictional limits under tax law were strictly enforced.
