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 : This explains why recent income disclosure intimations lack statutory support and create uncertainty. The key takeaway is that vag...
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 : ITAT held that section 249(4) cannot be invoked where no taxable income arises in India. Appeals must be decided on merits rather ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be reopened on issues already examined earlier. It held that absence of fresh material...
Income Tax : The Tribunal clarified that filing of original return is not mandatory for claiming exemption under Section 54. It directed verifi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai holds reassessment invalid where approval under Section 151 was obtained from incorrect authority, ruling defect as ju...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashes reopening beyond 3 years where escaped income is below ₹50 lakh, holding notice under Section 148 time-barre...
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 Court held that issuance of notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional defect. All consequential reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
ITAT dismissed the Revenues appeal because it did not contest the CIT(A)s ruling that the reassessment notice was legally invalid. Without challenging the jurisdictional defect, the appeal became infructuous.
ITAT condoned a 106-day delay considering the assessees senior citizen status and bona fide reasons. On merits, it restored the capital gains issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.
It was ruled that approval under Section 151 granted mechanically, with contradictory stands taken by the authority, vitiates the reopening. The reassessment was set aside for lack of proper application of mind.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as it relied solely on existing records. In absence of new tangible material, reopening amounted to impermissible review.
Delhi High Court held reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be initiated merely on an internal audit objection. Absence of new tangible material made reopening invalid.
The Tribunal upheld 200% penalty under Section 270A for misreporting income through ineligible deductions. Admitted incorrect claims were treated as conscious misrepresentation, not a bonafide error.
The Tribunal noted that the AO reopened the case under the mistaken belief that no scrutiny assessment had been made. Such factual error and absence of new incriminating material vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.
The AO recorded reasons for escapement without receiving confirmation from the Sub-Registrar. ITAT ruled that absence of tangible evidence vitiated reassessment, making the subsequent Section 263 revision unsustainable.
