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...
The Author in this article discusses the differing views taken by two high courts (exactly opposing views) on the question of limitation as to whether proceedings for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 can be re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 (deemed to be 148(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the ITA] from 01-Apr-2021 to 30-Jun-2021. (the Specified Period)).
Bombay High Court held that in absence of any fresh tangible material and simply attempting to re-visit and reconsider the decision which was rendered in earlier regular assessment proceedings is nothing but a change of opinion and hence reopening unsustainable.
As per the Finance Act 2021, the re-assessment notice can only be issued to an assessee under Section 148 of the Act when there is an information with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant Assessment Year with the prior approval of the specified authority under Section 151 to issue such notice.
Bombay High Court held that in the present case there is full and true disclosure on the part of the petitioner. Reopening of assessment, on the ground that another director of the same company has disclosed the income differently is evidently a change of opinion and unsustainable in law.
Bombay High Court held that as between the date of the orders of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of forming of opinion by the Income-tax Officer nothing new has happened i.e. there is no change in law, no new material came on record and no new information has been received. Hence reopening proceedings was just change of opinion accordingly the same is unsustainable in law.
Bombay High Court held that failure on the part of the assessee is a prerequisite for invoking jurisdiction for reopening of assessment. In absence of the same, reopening of assessment is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Reopening notice was issued without any tangible material. Mere change of opinion not provide jurisdiction to Revenue to re-open assessment.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment on the basis of change of opinion without reasons to indicate failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all the material facts is untenable in law.
Bombay High Court held that assessment order was passed after post considering the submission from the assessee regarding deduction under section 80P. Hence, reopening of assessment in absence of any new tangible material is unsustainable in law.
Keenara Industries Private Limited Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) HC held that substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 shall be applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and as per First Proviso to Section 149, limitation as specified under unamended provision as it stood prior to 01.04.2021, shall be applicable. As per unamended provision prescribing limitation, no notice can […]
