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...
ITAT Mumbai sets aside reassessment in Bombay Real Estate Development Co. case, emphasizing absence of new material. Key analysis and implications discussed.
Analysis of CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.2022 on the validity of notices issued under section 148 for AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18 after 31/03/2021. Uncover legal perspectives and implications.
As regards to the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. JCIT mentioned as under: Yes, it is a fit case to issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Explore ITAT Pune resolution in ACIT vs. Rohan & Rajdeep case. Deduction dispute u/s 80IA(4) for infra projects analyzed. Reopening validity examined.
Karida Real Estates Private Limited vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Keeping in view the fact that the impugned order and notice have been issued without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, this Court sets aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the […]
ACIT Vs Muktha Shantiniketan Properties (ITAT Chennai) It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has raised objection for reopening of assessment and the Assessing Officer has not passed any speaking order in respect of the objections raised by the assessee. It is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case […]
Plaza Cable Industries Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The maintainability of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act is central to the controversy in the instant case. On perusal of the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act qua the alleged escapement as reproduced in paragraph 6 above, it is straightaway noticed that the […]
Assessment framed by the AO is on other issues which is not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. In such a situation, the assessment order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
ITAT held that the absence of service of notice u/s 148/143(2) of the Act, reassessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act will be null and void.
HC held that despite lapse of four years and a scrutiny assessment, there is fresh tangible material in the present case in the form of information of beneficiaries of bogus LTCL/STCL report prepared by the office of Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) which reveals that Mahanivesh (India) Ltd. is a penny stock whose share price was manipulated in trade by way of a complex web of pre-arranged or artificial transactions to book long term/short term capital gain/loss to the beneficiaries.
