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...
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 are void under the faceless regime. Since the assessments were invalid, all consequential penalty orders were also quashed.
The issue was whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases could be disallowed under Section 69C. ITAT Mumbai held that in the absence of corroborative evidence, only the profit element can be taxed, restricting the addition to 6%.
The case examined taxability of stamp duty differential in the hands of a housewife joint owner. The Tribunal ruled that absence of financial contribution bars addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 are void. Under the faceless reassessment scheme, only the Faceless AO has jurisdiction to act.
The issue was whether protective additions could survive after substantive additions were confirmed in other hands. ITAT Chandigarh held that once substantive additions are upheld, protective additions must be deleted to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 cannot be triggered merely on the Assessing Officers recommendation. Independent examination and satisfaction of the Commissioner is a mandatory legal requirement.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot survive when the final addition departs from the original Section 148A notice. Consistency of information throughout the reopening process is mandatory.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited during demonetisation came from genuine business sales already offered to tax. It held that taxing the same amount again under Section 68 and Section 115BBE would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal examined the validity of reopening and multiple expense disallowances. While relief was granted on cash payments and reimbursed interest, statutory interest on taxes was held to be non-deductible.
The Tribunal ruled that absence of DIN on Section 143(2) notices vitiates jurisdiction under Section 147. All reassessment orders were quashed as legally unsustainable.
