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...
In Adil Rehman’s case, ITAT Hyderabad allows expenditure on special power of attorney, air tickets, hotel stays, etc., as deductible in computing capital gains under Section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Discover the ITAT Delhi ruling on taxing income from providing business support services to Indian group entities. Analysis of Solvay Asia vs. DCIT case under India-Thailand DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that the payment made towards interconnect usage charges to foreign telecom operators does not accrue or arise in India and in the absence of any permanent establishment in India could not be brought to tax in India under Article 7 of DTAA.
Allahabad High Court held that valid service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a condition precedent for making reassessment under section 147. Accordingly, non-service of notice on registered email ID is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
ITAT emphasized that the AO must decide on the objections raised by the assessee before proceeding with the assessment. Failure to do so renders the assessment bad in law.
In Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan Vs ACIT, Madras HC clarifies that failure to file returns under Sec 139(1) is essential for prosecution under Sec 276CC of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court judgment in Sanjay Kumar Vs ACIT reveals flaws in reassessment proceedings, jurisdictional issues, and errors in income tax notice.
In the case of Aashish Luthra vs. ITO, ITAT Mumbai deletes cash deposit addition after establishing the source as property sale advance received by the father.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, without any fresh and tangible material, merely on the basis of change of opinion is unsustainable in law.
The mere receipt of funds from M/s Solvent Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. did not constitute tangible evidence of income escapement by the assessee. Despite efforts by the assessee to provide explanations and evidence, the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries and relied solely on the information received.
