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 case examined reassessment based on third-party information without independent application of mind. The Tribunal ruled that r...
Income Tax : The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that interest on tax arrears is compensatory, not penal. It ruled that such...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that absence of a clear charge in the penalty notice makes the proceedings invalid. It ruled that failure to spe...
Income Tax : The case examined validity of a reassessment notice issued beyond statutory limits. The ITAT held the notice invalid as it exceede...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld reopening under Section 147 as Form 26AS reflected substantial contract receipts despite no return being filed...
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...
Calcutta HC examines the case of Tribeni Barters Pvt. Ltd., where the wrong PAN was quoted in a reassessment. Court orders presentation of relevant records.
Bombay High Court held that if the reasons for re-opening the assessment are based on incorrect facts or conclusions, the notice issued under section 148 of the income Tax Act for re-opening cannot be sustained.
Learn about the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Anokhi Realty Private Limited vs ITO, where it quashed an income tax reassessment notice issued to a non-existent entity. Analysis of amalgamation’s impact on tax assessment.
Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Mansha Textiles vs ITO case. ITAT allows interest deduction u/s 24(b) when income is receivable and approved.
Analysis of Himanshu Infratech vs ITO case from Delhi High Court. Quashing of reassessment due to delay in issuance notice u/s 148A(b) because of technical glitches on ITBA.
Delhi HC quashed an Income Tax notice issued on the mistaken belief of property ownership in Mansi Garg & Ors Vs CIT directing correction.
ITAT Mumbai’s decision in Shyamnarayan Trades Pvt Ltd vs ITO clarifies deductibility of interest on property loans, addressing loan repayment and share purchase.
ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Gunvantbhai Chhitubhai Nayak vs ITO emphasizes re-adjudication of a case with due consideration of evidence, after finding the CIT(A)’s order lacking in merits.
ITAT Mumbai held that under regular provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the provision for doubtful debt being in the nature of diminution in value of asset, it also attracts explanation (i) of the section 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, addition of book profit sustained.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 68 towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing company.
