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 Karnataka High Court quashed an assessment order after finding that allegations concerning 119 apartment sales were introduced without prior notice during Section 148A proceedings. The Court granted the taxpayer an opportunity to submit a detailed response before fresh consideration.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order after finding that the reopening of assessment proceeded on incorrect facts regarding alleged exempt income from penny stock transactions. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment notices issued beyond four years were invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record the assessee’s alleged failure to make full and true disclosure. The addition relating to ₹13.10 crore share application money was consequently set aside.
The High Court set aside notices issued under Sections 148A and consequential reassessment orders after holding that the proceedings suffered from jurisdictional infirmities. The relief, however, remains subject to the Supreme Court’s decision in the pending SLP.
The Tribunal held that preference share capital cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit once the assessee establishes identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of investors. Documentary evidence and banking records were found sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 68.
Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot survive where transactions are reflected in broker records and the source of funds is explained. Mere Client Code Modification information, without supporting evidence of tax evasion, is insufficient for making additions.
The Tribunal ruled that proportionate interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be sustained when the assessee has adequate reserves and interest-free funds to cover the advances. The Revenue failed to rebut the presumption recognized by higher courts.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings could not be initiated on the issue of broken period interest when the legal position had already been settled by binding precedents. The Court quashed the notices issued under Sections 148A and 148.
ITAT Surat held that additions relating to credit card payments and cash deposits could not be sustained when the assessee had explained them through sales of Amway products and commission income. The Tribunal found that these details had been overlooked by the tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that income could not be assessed in the hands of a firm that had ceased to exist years earlier. Since the deposits belonged to the successor proprietorship concern, the addition was deleted.
