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 : 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...
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 Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated solely on the basis of a revenue audit objection without fresh tangibl...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 15...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be revised under Section 263 since the conditions for treating jewellery e...
Income Tax : The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly adopted the stamp duty valuation despite contrary valuation material on record. ...
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...
TAT Kolkata ruled that reopening based on unverified foreign information amounted to borrowed satisfaction. Since the sanctioning authority granted approval mechanically, the reassessment was declared void.
elying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court upheld ITAT’s finding that reopening based on reappraisal of existing records is invalid. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT Bangalore held that the entire cost of construction claimed by the assessee while computing capital gains on sale of property could not be outrightly disallowed merely due to lack of complete supporting documents.
The ITAT Bangalore held that reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on an incorrect assumption that the assessee had claimed bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid under Section 149. As a result, the entire reassessment based on alleged accommodation entries was quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment where no advance tax liability existed, setting aside dismissal of appeal and restoring it for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 is invalid when the assessment year is the year of search. Such cases must proceed under normal assessment provisions.
The Court held that issuance of notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional defect. All consequential reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
ITAT dismissed the Revenues appeal because it did not contest the CIT(A)s ruling that the reassessment notice was legally invalid. Without challenging the jurisdictional defect, the appeal became infructuous.
