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...
ACIT Vs Sh. Ravi Parkash Aggarwal (ITAT Delhi) ITAT have gone through the reasons recorded. The first four lines consists of a factual information received from the DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai, the second part indicates that it has been established from the report that the assessee has taken accommodation entries and the third part consists of […]
It was held that there cannot be situation where two Assessing Officer would have simultaneous jurisdiction over the assessee. Accordingly, it was held that the Tribunal had rightly held that the issuance of notice under Section 148 (1) of the said Act by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction.
HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay high court exposing serious flaw in reopening under section 148 in HDFC case (significance of tangible material for formulation of valid belief , fatal impact of difference in the reasons recorded on file and reasons placed for statutory approval under section 151 etc. “30. The position […]
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay High court (HC) lays guidelines on reopening cases for assessing officer (AO) for strict compliance Bombay high court coming down heavily on income tax department in section 148 reopening cases where revenue is held not transparent with tax payers in sharing of requested information […]
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Lastly, it would be contextually relevant to note that the rejection of the objections to the reopening also suffers from a familiar error, which the notices for reopening usually manifest. The Assessing Officer in the impugned order recorded that though the details of the expenses were […]
Where notice under section 148 was issued to a non-existing entity as said entity ceased to exist at the time of the issue of the notice on account of merger; the said notice was liable to be quashed and it was not an error that could be corrected under section 292B.
ACIT Vs Ravi Parkash Aggarwal (ITAT Delhi) Primarily, we find that the reasons recorded by the assessee are too sketchy and does not instill any confidence with regard to the reasons recorded for reopening. It is not even clear whether the assessee has received entries pertaining to loans or purchases. The details of the report […]
Macrotech Developers Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The question is whether there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of Assessment Year 2012-13. It is not the case that there is failure on the part of the assessee to make […]
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs ACIT/DCIT (Bombay High Court) Admittedly, this is a case where the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act has also been completed. Hence, proviso to Section […]
Tata Sons Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) This is a case where the scrutiny assessment was completed and order under section 143(3) of the Act has been passed followed by a rectification order under section 154 of the Act. Therefore Petitioner’s case has been considered at two stages, (i) When the assessment order was […]
