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...
Assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of credits in his books and consequently, CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions after relying on various judgments made by AO.
ITAT Delhi held that denial of exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act for purchase of agricultural land in the name wife of the assessee is not justifiable. Accordingly, denial of benefit of deduction set aside.
ITAT Visakhapatnam rules exemption under Section 54F can be claimed even if made after a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the same assessing officer is required to pass an order under the new scheme after giving notice under Section 148 of the old Act. Thus, all the writ petition are dismissed.
Gujarat High Court held that AO couldn’t assume jurisdiction to reopen assessment, without forming independent opinion, solely and mechanically relying upon the information received from the other sources. Accordingly, reopening u/s. 148 quashed.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that rejection of claim of exemption under section 80G not based upon any substantial evidence is not tenable in law. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Assessee didnot file ITR for AY 2012-13 during which assessee made cash deposit of Rs.45,69,722/-. The case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was sent through e-mail against which no ITR was filed. Hence, AO made addition u/s 69A.
ITAT Agra held that matter of levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act restored back to file of AO since Tribunal restored matter of addition towards unexplained cash deposit for quantification.
ITAT Patna’s decision in Dharmendra Kumar vs. ITO regarding ₹1.10 crore treated as unexplained income. Appeal dismissed due to non-compliance.
Detailed analysis of the ITAT Jaipur decision in Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia Vs ACIT on unexplained investments, Section 263 jurisdiction, and procedural lapses.
