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 Tribunal upheld reopening under Section 147 as Form 26AS reflected substantial contract receipts despite no return being filed. It ruled that such information constitutes valid grounds for belief of income escaping assessment.
The issue was deletion of additions on unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits. The tribunal upheld deletion, holding that a favourable remand report confirming genuineness and creditworthiness weakens the Revenue’s case.
The issue involved dismissal of appeal due to delay and non-appearance. The tribunal condoned the delay citing medical reasons and remanded the matter for fresh assessment, imposing cost for non-compliance.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening invalid when based on existing records and no failure of disclosure.
The issue was whether reassessment notice issued without approval from the correct authority is valid. The tribunal held it invalid and quashed the assessment for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings must be initiated within the statutory time limit. It found the notice issued after the deadline to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer made no addition after verifying disclosures, the grievance lacked merit. Grounds were rightly treated as infructuous due to absence of tax impact.
The Court examined whether reassessment notice issued beyond limitation was valid. It held that notices issued after expiry of the six-year limit under the old regime are barred and liable to be set aside.
The Court held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be initiated solely on third-party data without independent evidence of income escapement. It ruled that such reopening amounts to suspicion and lacks the required “reason to believe.”
The Tribunal held that return of advances cannot be taxed under Section 68. The key takeaway is that explained transactions supported by records cannot be treated as unexplained income.
