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 Surat held reassessment invalid where notice u/s 148, though dated 31-03-2021, was issued on 01-04-2021 without following s.148A procedure; entire reassessment quashed.
The tribunal held that large cash deposits in bank accounts cannot be taxed as unexplained income when the assessee proves he acted only as a commission agent. Only commission income, and not gross deposits, is taxable in such cases.
The issue was dismissal of appeals for non-payment of admitted tax without hearing on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeals, holding that the assessee deserved an opportunity to explain advance tax liability.
he Tribunal held that unsecured loans could not be treated as unexplained cash credits when identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were duly proved. Consistency with earlier rulings involving the same lenders led to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies automatically when stamp value exceeds purchase price. However, it remanded the matter for DVO valuation to ensure fair determination of market value.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits reflecting routine business transactions cannot be treated wholly as unexplained income. Only the profit element embedded in such receipts is taxable.
Since the reassessment itself was quashed, the addition treating long-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 automatically failed. Jurisdictional defects were fatal to the assessment.
ITAT Cuttack held that reassessment proceedings fail when no addition is made on the very reasons recorded for reopening. If the original ground disappears, the entire reassessment becomes invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to revise an assessment when the very issue was already under challenge before the appellate authority. Parallel revision proceedings were held to be impermissible.
The tribunal deleted penalty where the quantum addition was restricted to an estimated profit element. It held that penalty cannot survive without a clear finding of concealment.
