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 : The Bombay High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C were barred by limitation as the assessments were not completed wit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. ...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that allegations relating to client code modification did not justify adding the entire purchase value under Section...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after the surviving limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court were invalid....
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that reassessment cannot be sustained merely because of high-value bank transactions without evidence ...
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...
Satish Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that assessee filed reply in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act and submitted before A.O. that original return filed before him may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. […]
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act , 1961 on the basis of information from Investigation Wing of the department On the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the department, the Assessing officer cannot issue notice u/s 148 of the act mechanically, without using his own mind. He has to […]
The assessee had challenged reopening of assessment on two grounds. The CIT(A) had accepted the arguments of the assessee, in light of provisions of section 147 of the Act, and the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29/12/2018 and came to the conclusion that the assessment has been reopened on change of opinion without there being any tangible material, in the possession of the AO, which suggest escapement of income.
M/s. Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the reasons for reopening of the case for the impugned assessment year, copy of which is placed at paper book page No. 20-21 shows that the reopening was made on the basis of the report of the investigation wing and there […]
Nishi Kapoor Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer who has valid jurisdiction over the case of the assessee shall record reasons u/s 148(2) for reassessment proceedings, otherwise issue of notice u/s 148 is not valid. Reopening notice invalid If the officer who had issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, was different […]
Though AO had issued notice under section 148 on 26-3-2014, i.e., within period of six years from the end of relevant assessment year, however, it was returned unserved by postal authorities and even notice by affixture was also served on 4-4-2014 and there was no report of AO containing names and addresses of witnesses having identified the property, therefore, in the absence of section 148 notice served within stipulated period, reassessment proceedings were invalid.
Notice under section 148 issued to a dead person could not be continued against the legal representatives and moreover, section 292B also could not be resorted to.
otice under section 148 issued on the basis of insufficient compliance to Letters dated 20.05.2011 and dated 02.02.2016 were wholly unauthorized in law as the reasons recorded must indicate that AO had applied his mind to the fact that income was chargeable to tax under the Act and it had exceeded maximum amount not chargeable to income Tax. Hence, reassessment was not valid as there were no reasons recorded by AO in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case.
Proceedings under section 148 could not be initiated for verification of the sources of investment and therefore, the reasons recorded by AO were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction for issuing notice under section 148.
Notice under section 148 could not be issued for verification of information, but here the jurisdictional satisfaction of the essential requirement had to be shown that there had to be reason to believe that there was income chargeable to tax which was not there in the assessment order passed. Thus, the reasons recorded by AO were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction and the assessment orders u/s 144 read with 147 was quashed.
