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 ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the AO’s acceptance of ₹12.18 lakh exempt LTCG on Kushal Tradelink shares was based on a detailed inquiry and a plausible view. The Tribunal held that revision is invalid when the AO conducts due diligence, finds no adverse material to link the assessee to price rigging, and takes a possible view on the evidence.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal because the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books had already been deleted by the Tribunal, establishing that the authority was not legally obliged to keep books. The Tribunal concluded that if no books are required to be maintained under Section 44AA, no penalty for failure to audit them under Section 271B can legally survive.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the balance unexplained cash credit, emphasizing that mere suspicion of cash deposits in the lenders account doesnt negate the genuineness of a loan when the lender has significant proven sources like an agricultural land sale.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the addition of ₹2.28 crore LTCG, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct any independent inquiry or verify the assessees documentary evidence before treating the gain as bogus. The Tribunal restored the case, emphasizing that an allegation of penny stock misuse cannot be sustained merely on third-party information without a proper, on-merits examination of the assessees documentation.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of LTCG and commission under Section 69C, affirming that the Revenue cannot deny exemption under Section 10(38) based on a general investigation into Kushal Tradelink without establishing the assessees direct involvement in the accommodation entries. This ruling confirms that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, the Revenue must provide contrary material to sustain the addition.
In a key ruling, ITAT Hyderabad restored an appeal that the CIT(A) had dismissed for non-prosecution, as the NFAC was found to have incorrectly used an email address other than the one specified by the assessee in Form 35. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Courts mandate for a liberal approach to condoning the resulting 98-day delay and remanded the case for a decision on merits.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside and matter is remanded back to AO since additional evidences submitted by the assessee needs to be verified by lower authorities.
ITAT Jaipur quashed the reassessment order against Late Shri Jitendra Nagar, ruling the AO used the wrong authority (PCIT) for sanction under Section 151(ii), following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal precedent.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that the power to reopen an assessment under Section 147/148 is invalid when a valid return is on record and the Assessing Officer still has time to initiate regular scrutiny under Section 143(2).
Relying on the jurisdictional High Court precedent, the Tribunal quashed the entire crore addition, holding that service of the notice beyond the statutory limitation date is a fatal flaw. The decision emphasizes that procedural compliance with the time limit is mandatory and cannot be waived.
