Income Tax : Learn how different types of income tax assessments are conducted under the Income-tax Act. The FAQs explain assessment procedures...
Income Tax : This guide explains who is required to maintain books of account under Section 44AA based on business, profession, turnover, and i...
Income Tax : This guide explains the various assessments under the Income-tax Act, including summary assessment, scrutiny assessment, best judg...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
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 Pune held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was approved by the Principal C...
Income Tax : ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with a co-operative bank remained attributable to it...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Comm...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments quashing reassessment notices after noting that the Finance Act, 2026 introduced ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that Section 68 could not be applied to sale proceeds received from investments already recorded in the books in an ...
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 ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer merely relied on Investigation Wing information without independently analysing the material or establishing a nexus with the assessee.
The ITAT ruled that approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner is mandatory for reopening assessments beyond three years. Since approval was obtained from an incorrect authority, the reassessment was declared void and the addition was deleted.
The Mumbai ITAT held that ownership premises received under a redevelopment scheme are acquired in exchange for valuable tenancy rights and cannot be treated as having a nil cost. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair market value of the surrendered tenancy rights for recomputing capital gains.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an Assessing Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. Having quashed the reassessment on jurisdictional grounds, the Tribunal did not examine the merits of the Section 68 addition.
ITAT Delhi held that a reassessment initiated by an Assessing Officer without pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 is invalid. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment and dismissed the Revenues appeal.
The ITAT held that reassessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the assessee’s objections through a separate speaking order before completing reassessment. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment following the principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
The dispute concerned deduction of CSR expenditure incurred before Explanation 2 to section 37(1) became applicable. The ITAT held that the contribution, made under Ministry of Shipping guidelines, was allowable for AY 2012-13. The decision emphasised that the statutory bar introduced from AY 2015-16 could not be applied retrospectively.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment beyond four years was invalid because the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. The notice under Section 148 and related proceedings were quashed.
The ITAT held that relying on tally data and a forensic report without providing them to the assessee violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer while retaining the commission rate at 0.15%.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment order making no new additions does not merge with the original assessment so as to permit challenge to issues accepted earlier. The original disallowance remained unaffected.
