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 notice issued after the permissible window calculated under TOLA and judicial rulings was held void. The case highlights strict adherence to limitation timelines.
The Tribunal ruled that supplying only a summary of reasons is insufficient in law. The failure to furnish recorded reasons vitiated the entire reassessment.
ITAT Mumbai held delay and ex-parte orders cannot override justice. ₹64.8 lakh addition u/s 69 set aside; case remanded for fresh examination, giving assessee opportunity to submit evidence.
The CIT(A) upheld additions without discussing merits or legal issues. The Tribunal ruled that a speaking order is mandatory and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The reassessment notice issued within four years was wrongly quashed by applying amended law. The Tribunal restored the matter, emphasizing correct application of applicable provisions.
ITAT ruled that failure to file a return does not justify taxing income without allowing legitimate deductions. The case was sent back to the AO to consider exemptions and deductions available in records.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 could not survive where the Section 148 notice was issued after 1 April 2021. The Tribunal ruled that such notices were barred by limitation and the resulting reassessment was void.
The constitutional validity of Section 232B and the proviso to Section 180(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was upheld while setting aside specific retrospective tax notices issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation(KMC) to a property owner as they neither suffer from manifest arbitrariness nor violate Articles 14, 19 or 300A.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as approval was taken from the wrong authority beyond three years. It ruled that such non-compliance with Section 151(ii) vitiates jurisdiction and renders the notice void.
The case examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when approval was obtained from an incorrect authority. The Court held the sanction invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements, rendering the reassessment void. The ruling highlights strict adherence to approval hierarchy in reopening cases.
