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...
A reassessment order was challenged because the Section 148 notice was issued in the name of the assessee who had died a year earlier. The ITAT ruled that a notice issued to a deceased or non-existent person is non est in law, deeming the assumption of jurisdiction and the entire reassessment process void ab initio.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as the notice under Section 148 failed to disclose mandatory approval under Section 151. The Tribunal found the reopening to be mechanical and without independent application of mind, rendering the reassessment void ab initio.
The ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment orders for three assessment years (AY 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17) based on fundamental legal flaws. The ruling confirms that reassessments are invalid if initiated on wrong or substituted reasons, if they are time-barred (following the Supreme Court’s concession in the Rajeev Bansal case), or if they proceed without valid statutory sanction from the competent authority.
The Tribunal annulled a reassessment after finding the AO wrongly assumed no return was filed. It held that a notice under Section 148 issued without applying mind is invalid, reinforcing that “reason to believe” must rest on verified facts.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of a Rs.1.83 crore addition for alleged bogus loans, ruling that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted search statements cannot override documentary evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the loans were genuine, noting the assessee provided full proof of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness via audited accounts, bank statements, and TDS on interest paid to the NBFC lenders.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reopening assessment for AY 2015-16, ruling the Section 148 notice issued on 31.07.2022 was time-barred. This decision strictly follows the Rajeev Bansal (SC) judgment, which held that the TOLA extension for reopening notices did not apply to AY 2015-16 beyond 31.03.2021.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reassessment for two assessment years, ruling it was invalid as the reopening occurred beyond the four-year limit from the original scrutiny assessment without any allegation of the taxpayer failing to disclose material facts. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s mandate under the first proviso to Section 147.
The ITAT Kolkata condoned a massive 2581-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting the taxpayer’s claim of being unaware of the CIT(A)’s order as a reasonable cause. The case was sent back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the payment of Rs.25,000 cost.
The ITAT Delhi confirmed the addition of Rs.25.35 lakh as unexplained investment for a house purchase under Section 69, ruling that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of loans allegedly received from his mother and sister. The lenders lacked sufficient bank balances, and documentation was incomplete.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s exercise of newly amended powers under Section 251(1)(a) to set aside an ex-parte order passed under Section 144. Since the assessee was denied due opportunity, the matter was remanded for reassessment. The ruling clarifies that appellate authorities can now direct fresh assessments where procedural fairness was lacking.
