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 Tribunal ruled that issuing a Section 143(2) notice before communicating reasons for reopening deprives the assessee of its statutory right to object. This violation invalidated the entire reassessment for the second year. The decision underscores that procedural fairness in reopening is a statutory mandate, not optional.
ITAT Delhi held that the addition of Rs. 73,99,475 as LTCG under Section 10(38) was unjustified, as the assessee provided complete evidence and no direct link to alleged bogus transactions was established.
Tribunal held that an unsigned 143(2) notice violates Section 282A(1), making reassessment void. Ruling confirms that signature is mandatory and cannot be cured under Section 292B.
The assessee furnished PANs, bank statements, and confirmations proving the genuineness of share capital and loan transactions, leading to dismissal of the Revenue appeal. Both CIT(A) and Tribunal confirmed that repayment and identity verification are sufficient. This reinforces legal certainty in documented transactions under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the loan could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished complete documentary evidence. The authorities failed to conduct further inquiry or rebut the lender’s confirmation. The ruling emphasizes that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely on suspicion.
The Tribunal found that the notice did not indicate whether scrutiny was limited or complete, contrary to CBDT directives. This omission made the notice invalid and rendered the assessment unsustainable. The decision reinforces the necessity of clarity and compliance in scrutiny notices.
ITAT Mumbai held that donations to registered trusts cannot be taxed under Section 69C solely based on third-party statements without supporting evidence.
The assessee’s capital-gain computation and share-transaction trail matched disclosed data. ITAT held the AO’s conclusion to be unsupported and dismissed Revenue’s appeal.
ITAT held that once investments were accepted in prior assessments, their sale proceeds cannot be treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that Section 68 cannot be invoked without fresh incriminating evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly due to the assessee’s 60% handicap, emphasizing that delay in filing was not deliberate. The case was remanded for merit-based adjudication, ensuring fairness. Key takeaway: disabilities and procedural lapses can justify condoning appeal delays.
