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...
Where original assessment order was subjected to revision under section 263, interest under section 234B would be charged till completion of assessment under section 143(3) read with section 263.
The Petitioner seeks the quashing of a notice dated 20th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (Act) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter Assessing Officer AO) and the order dated 1st February, 2016 passed by the AO disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the said notice.
Where notice was not issued by assessing officer under section 143(2) before passing order under section 143(3) read with section 147, assessment made by him was bad in law. Provisions of section 292BB are not applicable where there is failure to issue notice under section 143(2).
Where reassessment proceedings were initiated on the directions from JCIT or CIT and AO had not carried out any independent exercise to examine fresh material to come to a conclusion that the assessment warrants reopening on account of escapement of income, the reassessment was bad in law.
This writ petition by Yum! Restaurants Asia PTE Ltd. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeks the quashing of a notice dated 28th March 2012 issued by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (hereinafter the Assessing Officer or AO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06.
Where CIT (A) had annulled original scrutiny assessment concluded under section 143(3) on the legal ground that notice issued under section 143(2) was time-barred, then revenue was precluded to adopt recourse of reassessment under section 147 to correct the mistake committed originally in not issuing notice under section 143(2) in time.
Where AO reopened the assessment, based on statements recorded and material impounded during survey, however, without establishing any whisper from the reasons recorded regarding the escapement of any income, such reassessment based on suspicion and surmises was set aside.
The assessing officer issued notice under section 148 for reassessment, during the pendency of assessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 which is bad in law and cannot be sustained
This is yet another case in the ever increasing number of cases filed before this Court challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Proceedings under Section 148 of the Act which commenced with the notice dated 3rd April, 2012 issued to VBPPL were itself void ab initio for the simple reason that on that day VBPPL was not in existence as a result of the order dated 20th February, 2013 of the High Court approving its amalgamation with the Petitioner with effect from 1st April, 2012. The question of revival of such proceedings at a later point in time, with there being no change to the legal position regarding VBPPL having ceased to exist, does not arise.
