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 Tribunal found that the investors had substantial net worth far exceeding their investments. With PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and audited financials on record, the share capital could not be treated as unexplained.
The Tribunal confirmed that once identity, source, and movement of funds are established through records, treating the investment as unexplained is unjustified. Revenues appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that failure to provide opportunity to cross-examine foreign information sources amounted to violation of natural justice. Additions based on unverified documents were therefore invalid.
The Tribunal clarified that even where the assessee owns more than ten trucks, Section 44AE can be used as a fair yardstick for income estimation. Arbitrary assessment and multiple additions were set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that incorrect computation of opening and closing stock during survey cannot justify full addition. Only the reconciled excess stock amount already offered to tax was sustained.
Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that failure to provide underlying material before passing order under Section 148A(d) invalidates reopening. The assessment order was consequently quashed.
Holding that the Assessing Officer recorded a mechanical satisfaction note without concrete incriminating evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenues appeals and confirmed invalid jurisdiction under Section 153C.
The Tribunal emphasized that approval from the correct specified authority is mandatory where reopening exceeds three years. Failure to comply rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid where the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during original scrutiny. In absence of failure to disclose, reopening under Section 147 was quashed.
The ITAT held that approval under Section 151 was invalid as the PCIT merely noted As per Annexure without independent satisfaction. The reassessment under Section 147 was declared void ab initio.
