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...
Dazzler Confectionery Company Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted Due to Defective Notice – No Specific Charge Mentioned AO levied penalty of ₹44.79 lakh u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowances relating to pre-operative expenses & 35D deduction. Penalty notice u/s 274 was issued using “concealment OR furnishing inaccurate particulars” without specifying the exact charge. Assessee […]
ITAT held that stamp duty value on registration date cannot be applied where allotment occurred earlier. Allotment date determines valuation under Section 56.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of four years not sustainable since there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Further, reassessment is invalid for non-furnishing of actual reasons recorded.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
The ITAT held that no addition can be made under Section 69A when the source of cash is explained through bank withdrawals. Doubts about utilisation alone cannot justify treating it as unexplained money.
The Tribunal held that dividend received from identifiable mutual funds through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained income. It ruled that proper documentation and traceability negate applicability of Section 68.
The Tribunal held that entire purchases cannot be disallowed when corresponding sales are accepted. It upheld restriction of addition to profit element, preventing unrealistic income computation.
The Tribunal condoned delay after finding reasonable cause and examined the merits of the case. It held that no capital gains arise where purchase and sale consideration are identical.
The Tribunal held that no double deduction was claimed as the provision was already added back in computation. The addition was deleted for being based on incorrect facts.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without considering joint ownership and without referring valuation to the DVO. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with proper verification.
