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 issue involved taxing a marginal valuation difference on property purchase. The Tribunal deleted the addition as the variation was below the statutory tolerance threshold. The decision confirms that minor deviations alone cannot be treated as taxable income.
The Tribunal held that unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained once lenders confirm transactions and respond to section 133(6) notices. Suspicion without evidence cannot justify section 68 additions.
The Tribunal held that additions treating shooting location receipts as house property income were premature. Authorities were directed to re-examine the claim after considering all relevant documents.
The Tribunal noted that share application money in the first year requires proper enquiry before invoking Section 68. Additions were deleted as statutory conditions were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the entire political donation could not be treated as bogus in the absence of incriminating evidence. To balance equities, only 10% of the alleged on-money was directed to be taxed on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal followed binding High Court precedents to hold that reassessment must strictly adhere to the faceless mechanism. Deviation from the mandated procedure invalidated the notice and the entire reassessment.
The issue was whether a post-search assessment could be completed under section 143(3) using third-party material. The Tribunal ruled that the special reassessment route under sections 148 and 148B was mandatory.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on Insight Portal inputs without independent application of mind is invalid. Since the reassessment itself failed, the addition of share LTCG as unexplained income under section 68 could not survive.
The Tribunal found that full construction cost was not proved with evidence. However, a reasonable ad-hoc allowance was granted considering practical difficulties.
The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot survive when no addition is made on the very issue for which reopening was initiated. Once the recorded reason fails, the entire reassessment collapses.
