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 : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a return filed under section 148 remains valid even if delayed. Failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill 2026 proposes allowing taxpayers to file an Updated Return even after receiving a reassessment notice under Secti...
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 : Humble Representation for modification of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act relating to Sanction for issue of Notice under sec. 14...
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 : ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to a...
Income Tax : Court ruled that reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued through the faceless mechanism under Section 151A and the 2...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued...
Income Tax : The Jharkhand High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 147A removed the jurisdictional challenge against reassessme...
Income Tax : The department has identified high-risk cases through its Insight Portal for AYs 2022-25. It directs officers to initiate reassess...
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...
Income Tax : Explore the latest guidelines for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand key procedures, amendme...
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 High Court held that once identical transactions were examined and accepted in later assessments, the basis for reopening earlier years did not survive.
The tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued after three years was invalid as sanction was taken from an incompetent authority. The assessment was quashed for non-compliance with section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal upheld revision where the Assessing Officer failed to examine an exempt LTCG claim linked to penny stock manipulation. The ruling affirms that lack of inquiry makes an order erroneous and prejudicial.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued much after the surviving period is barred by limitation. Accordingly, notices are set aside and petition is allowed.
The Bombay High Court held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed assessments when no incriminating material is found during search. Post-search documents like base notes are insufficient to justify additions.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 68 cannot be sustained merely on statements recorded during a third-party survey under section 133A. In absence of independent enquiry, corroborative evidence, or cross-examination, such statements have no evidentiary value.
The tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
A 284-day delay in filing appeals was condoned after accepting explanations including medical issues and disruptions. The key takeaway is that relief was granted but balanced by imposing costs to deter repeated non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 153 overrides the DRP timeline under Section 144C. As the assessment was completed beyond the statutory outer limit, it was quashed as invalid.
While restoring the appeals, the ITAT directed expeditious disposal and warned against avoidable adjournments. The key takeaway is that condonation is granted to enable justice, not to prolong litigation.
