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 Madhya Pradesh High Court held that income disclosed under the VDIS does not prevent tax authorities from scrutinising returns where material shows higher undisclosed income. Immunity under the Scheme applies only to the income actually declared.
The Tribunal recognised that funds could not be used due to a High Court injunction. Such legally restrained non-utilisation cannot be treated as a statutory violation.
The decision reiterates that section 150 is subject to section 150(2) and cannot revive time-barred or jurisdictionally invalid assessments. Directions to reopen were struck down as unlawful.
Proposed adjustments against stayed demands were held impermissible. The Court ruled that such actions cannot defeat the assessee’s right to timely refund with interest.
The Tribunal held that cancellation of the earlier sale deed restored legal ownership to the assessee’s family. Consequently, compensation received on compulsory acquisition qualified for exemption under section 10(37).
The Tribunal examined whether a third-party seized document could be ignored as a dumb document. It held that once cheque entries in the same document matched recorded transactions, related cash entries could not be disbelieved and addition under section 69C was justified.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty proceedings are consequential to assessment. When the assessment issue is pending before the High Court, penalty cannot be enforced.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that reassessment cannot be based on re-appreciation of facts already scrutinized earlier. Without failure of disclosure, invoking Section 147 beyond four years was invalid.
The Tribunal held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed under section 153C without incriminating material found during search. Additions based solely on third-party data were ruled invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that repeated reopening cannot survive where statutory timelines are breached. A reassessment initiated beyond the permissible surviving period was quashed in entirety.
