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 Chennai held a reassessment notice under section 148 invalid as it was issued after the statutory limitation expired, emphasizing strict compliance with time limits.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under section 147 fails when seized search material exists. The correct and exclusive route is section 153C, making the reopening jurisdictionally invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that taxing entire bank cash deposits under section 69A without examining business explanations is unsustainable. The reassessment was restored for de-novo adjudication with conditions.
The Tribunal ruled that issuing only three hearing notices does not satisfy principles of natural justice. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that once sale receipts are accepted as consideration from immovable property, they cannot be taxed as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessment was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void because approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is strict compliance with section 151(ii) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
This explains why recent income disclosure intimations lack statutory support and create uncertainty. The key takeaway is that vague communications without cited legal provisions may not withstand legal scrutiny.
The ITAT ruled that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on suspicion when transactions are supported by proper banking, demat, and broker records.
The reassessment was triggered without examining invoices, bank entries, TDS data, or business records. The Tribunal held that mechanical reopening based on external information is bad in law.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment could stand when based on information relating to another individual. It held that reopening was invalid due to absence of any tangible material against the assessee.
