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 Delhi held that approval granted under section 151 of the Income Tax Act in mechanical manner without application of mind hence reopening of assessment based on such mechanical order is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that foundation of reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on wrong facts is not justifiable. Hence, reopening of assessment is liable to be quashed.
Since no new material or facts had come to light and the AO had already applied his mind during the original assessment, the reassessment proceedings were invalid in law accordingly, Section 148 notice was quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that order of special audit held to be void ab-initio since due procedure as mandated under the provisions of Sec. 142(2A) and Sec. 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act has not been followed.
ITAT Bangalore held that initiation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by CIT based on the recommendation of the AO is not maintainable. Accordingly, revisionary order set aside and appeal allowed.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were properly explained and recorded, therefore, addition made under section 69A of ₹17,16,000 and taxed under section 115BBE was not sustainable.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside a reassessment order for Dalpat Baraiya, ruling that approval from the wrong authority invalidated the entire proceeding.
ITAT Raipur held that passing of CIT(A) order was ex-parte without hearing the assessee and there is sufficient cause shown by assessee in not attending hearings as per opportunities granted by CIT(A). Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A).
The ITAT Delhi has quashed a reassessment order against Sumit Suneja, finding that the AO quoted a repealed section of law and received a mechanical, undated approval.
ITAT Hyderabad rules against the re-taxing of a gift, stating that revisiting the same facts to make a new addition is an impermissible “change of opinion.”
