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 issue was whether reopening could be done when a jointly owned property exceeds ₹50 lakh in total value. The Tribunal held that only the assessee’s share counts; if it is below ₹50 lakh, reopening beyond three years is without jurisdiction.
Protective addition was sustained despite completion of substantive assessment. ITAT clarified that protective assessment cannot survive after ownership and taxability are conclusively determined.
The assessee produced full details of the share subscriber, including financials and bank statements. ITAT held that after primary onus is discharged, the burden shifts to the Department, which was not met.
The case examined whether exchange data alone could justify taxing alleged commodity profits. The Tribunal ruled that once the broker admits wrong PAN mapping and identifies the real trader, the addition cannot survive.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 148 notices issued with approval from an incorrect authority are invalid. Reassessment orders for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were quashed.
The issue was whether bogus purchases disallowed under section 37(1) must be reclassified as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. ITAT held that where the source of expenditure is known, section 69C cannot be mechanically invoked.
The Tribunal held that AIR-triggered reopening and additions cannot stand where an NRI explains investments with foreign remittance evidence, and remanded the case for fresh verification.
The ITAT held that the proviso to Section 68 requiring proof of source of source applies only from AY 2013–14. Since the year involved was AY 2008–09, the ₹32.04 crore share capital addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The issue was whether property investment could be treated as unexplained in reassessment proceedings. The ITAT held that where bank trails, NRE accounts, and loan documents fully explain the source, additions cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to a shell concern with no real services is taxable as unexplained credit. Claims that expenditure related to an earlier year were rejected.
