Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
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...
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 Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon wri...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated solely on the basis of a revenue audit objection without fresh tangibl...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 15...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be revised under Section 263 since the conditions for treating jewellery e...
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 Tribunal confirmed addition of unexplained investments where the assessee could not substantiate the source of deposits. The ruling reinforces the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
The Court held that adjusting a refund against a disputed demand during the subsistence of a stay order is illegal and arbitrary, directing release of the refund with interest.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order as the assessee sought another chance to prove the genuineness of expenses. It directed fresh assessment after proper opportunity of hearing.
ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid. The burden of proof lies on the department.
The case involved additions for unexplained bank deposits where the assessee later produced authenticated NRE account evidence. ITAT remanded the matter, directing fresh consideration of documents and proper opportunity of hearing.
Delhi High Court held that challenge to reassessment proceedings initiated under Income Tax Act failed as Court cannot act as an AO and call such documents which otherwise can be done by AO. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
Interest earned on funds kept in bank during business setup, when those funds were directly linked to the project, was a capital receipt and not taxable as “income from other sources
ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 270A as quantum addition was fully removed. Held that no under-reporting exists when assessed income equals returned income and TDS details are already on record.
ITAT held that where sales are not disputed, entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only 15% profit element was taxed, reinforcing that tax applies to real income, not gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that unfinished properties classified as work-in-progress cannot be subjected to notional rent under section 23. Since construction was incomplete, the addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
