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...
Authorities added ₹8 crore as unexplained investment in the wrong year. The Tribunal confirmed that the cash component belonged to a prior year. The ruling stresses year-specific taxation of undisclosed transactions.
While an error in computation was acknowledged, prejudice to Revenue was not established. The Tribunal quashed the revision for lack of both ingredients. The ruling clarifies strict thresholds for invoking section 263.
Recognizing the nature of the manufacturing business and accepted sales, the Tribunal scaled down the disallowance. The decision stresses pragmatic assessment. It avoids penalizing genuine turnover.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on third-party information without independent application of mind is invalid. Income escaping assessment must be based on the Assessing Officer’s own reason to believe.
The Tribunal examined whether website development charges were genuine business expenses. It upheld the disallowance after finding the vendor to be a non-existent entity and services to be unproven.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued years after the assessee’s death is a legal nullity. Such proceedings are void even if the department was not informed about the death.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on borrowed satisfaction, without inquiry or verification by the AO, is unsustainable. Independent application of mind is mandatory under the new regime.
Despite large additions for alleged unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment itself. It reaffirmed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed without proper and reasoned approval.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and seized digital data cannot survive without allowing cross-examination. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under section 69 cannot exceed the amount actually invested during the relevant year. Where most payments were loan-funded, only the year-specific payment required examination.
