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...
ITAT Hyderabad upholds remand for ex-parte reassessment, allowing the assessee to challenge the Section 148 notice validity based on the mandatory faceless procedure violation in fresh proceedings.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes Rs.11.27 lakh addition for penny stock investment, ruling the Revenue failed to prove the investment originated from the assessee’s own unexplained funds under Section 69B.
ITAT Pune sets aside NFAC’s ex-parte order, mandating fresh adjudication on S. 44AD applicability to commission income, citing violation of natural justice and lack of proper notice.
ITAT Hyderabad in Pitti Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT quashes a reassessment for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The order holds that notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) instead of the Faceless AO (FAO) after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme 2022 are void ab initio.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that reassessment notices under Sections 148A(b) and 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after April 1, 2022, are invalid and void ab initio. This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, quashing the entire reassessment for lack of proper authority.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled that protective additions made in reassessment proceedings are invalid because they did not co-exist with a substantive addition for the same assessment year. The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot stand in isolation and cannot be based on mere suspicion to keep a hypothetical option open for the Revenue.
This decision strengthens the protection against time-barred reassessment, emphasizing that the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) applies only if the escaped income is factually above ₹50 lakh. The ITAT confirmed the reassessment was invalid as the AO’s final order confirmed the escaped income was much lower than the extended limit required for reopening
The ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) cannot set aside a reassessment order framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as the limited power to remand only applies to best-judgment assessments under Section 144. The Tribunal sent the penny stock LTCG case back, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal strictly on its merits.
The ITAT Delhi invalidated the reassessment proceedings against Huawei International, a Singapore resident, for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s attempt to investigate offshore software receipts, based merely.
The ITAT Delhi set aside the CIT(A)’s order deleting a Rs.16.10 Cr unsecured loan addition against Nitin Garg, remanding the issue to the AO. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) erred by not requesting a remand report to verify the lender’s creditworthiness and the source of funds, despite the assessee’s non-compliance during assessment.
