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 Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained as assessee disclosed the source of credits. It is also held that assessee has also disclosed source of source and hence addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai quashes Rs. 2.23 crore tax addition on Anil Jaggi, citing invalid approval for reassessment, a key procedural lapse.
ITAT Delhi held that apportionment of license fees as 10% towards recorded events and 90% towards live coverage instead of 5% and 95% as claimed by sports broadcasters. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit cannot be sustained as cash deposit already included in turnover declared by the assessee in return of income. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted.
Punjab & Haryana High Court invalidates reassessment notices for Assessment Year 2015-16, citing limitation bar based on Supreme Court precedent.
Rajasthan High Court directs ITO to consider the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal precedent regarding expired limitation periods for AY 2015-16 tax notices.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per previous provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act applicable till 31st March 2013, the assessee was not required to explain the source of money provided by the creditors.
ITAT Amritsar held that addition on protective basis in the hands of assessee not justified as bank account is fraudulently opened in his name without the assessee’s knowledge. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and addition directed to be deleted.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside reassessment for advocate Nilanjana Arvinder Singh (AY 2013-14, 2014-15), ruling Section 148 notices time-barred. Decision follows Supreme Court’s Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal rulings on reassessment limitation.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside reassessment against Ramchand Jhamtani (AY 2014-15), ruling Section 148 notice time-barred. Decision relies on Supreme Court’s Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal judgments.
