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 Bangalore sets aside tax demand of ₹7.29 crore on a rural co-op society, citing its inability to explain a ₹4.63 crore cash deposit due to a negligent tax practitioner.
Calcutta High Court overturns Usha Martin Telematics tax order for 2019-20, citing a violation of natural justice after a personal hearing was denied.
Under Section 153C, the six-year limitation period for issuing a notice to a person other than the one searched begins from the date on which the documents or materials were received by AO, not from the date of the search or notice.
Revenue argued that since assessee was an “eligible assessee” under section 144C(15), AO rightly passed the order and the final order was valid within the time limit of section 153(4). On appeal.
Mere involvement in a flagged scrip, in absence of concrete evidence of manipulation or unaccounted funds, could not justify taxing bonafide transactions. Therefore, the additions under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable.
Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)’s view that alleged accommodation loans were not supported by bank statements. Reopening and addition u/s 69A struck down; Revenue’s case dismissed.
ITAT Chennai held that the amount gifted by the brother cannot be treated as unexplained. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act deleted to that extent. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
The ITAT Mumbai has upheld a decision to restrict a bogus purchase addition to a 12.5% gross profit rate, citing a Bombay High Court precedent, in the case of DCIT vs. S. Rasiklal and Co.
The ITAT has set aside a penalty order against a taxpayer, Murmu Pankaj Kumar, ruling it was premature as the core quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A).
ITAT Delhi: Assessment against a company in liquidation is quashed. The IBC moratori-um overrides the Income Tax Act, rendering the tax proceedings null and void.
