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...
Each aspect of Section 147 has been a subject matter of careful scrutiny by the court of law. One such main issue is with respect to the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO to reopen the assessment beyond four years, merely by making a Bald Assertion in the reasons as to the failure of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts. The author has made an analysis veracity of such practice with the help of available judicial pronouncements
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(A) is correct in holding that the appellant is not a state under Article 289 of the Constitution of India and therefore, liable to tax under the Income Tax Act?
Whether AO is correct in rejecting the claim of assessee regarding the deduction u/s 54F, which was made first time during Reassessment Proceedings?
The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in issuing Notice under section 147 for re-opening of assessment irrespective of the fact that the material on which he relied is already present in front of him at the time of assessment u/s 143(3)?
AO was not justified in reopening of assessment after four years as on an independent application of mind and on thorough consideration of material aspects and legal position,there was no failure on the part of assessee.
DCIT Vs Coal India Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) Section 148 of the Act does not authorize the AO to issue fresh notice when proceedings on a previous notice u/s. 148 of the Act are still pending and have not been finally disposed of. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Commercial Art […]
ITAT states that the assessee has disclosed the sale of shares in its books of account. Once the sale is declared as income by the assessee, the question of treating the same amount as a cash credit u/s 68 of the Act results in double addition. Thus, the addition is also bad on merits. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(A) is correct by annulling the assessment order on the ground that no notice under section 143(2) was issued before the completion of assessment?
T. Krishnamurthy Vs ITO (Madras High Court) This is a case where details of investment in shares and immovable property were not originally disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filing of the original returns under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. Therefore, two notices under section 148 […]
Bimla Devi D/o. Shri Phool Chand Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without discussing merit of the case is justified in law? ITAT studied the matter and state that it is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal […]
