Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlig...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court has remitted reassessment cases for fresh consideration after the retrospective insertion of Section 147A, leavi...
Income Tax : This article explains why reassessment proceedings may be invalid if the Assessing Officer merely relies on Investigation Wing rep...
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 : Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore remanded a Section 69A addition after holding that an APMC commission agent's entire sale proceeds could not be tre...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after grantin...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
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...
With the reassessment notice quashed, the consequential assessment order and demand were automatically annulled. The ruling highlights that taxpayers cannot be burdened where initiation itself is unlawful.
ITAT deleted disallowance of depreciation, loan interest, and fuel expenses after finding cars were registered in the company’s name. Ad-hoc personal use disallowance without evidence was held unsustainable.
Since the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, the assessment collapsed. The ruling affirms that valid notice by the competent authority is a sine qua non.
The Tribunal ruled that estimating higher profit without rejecting audited books or finding major defects is impermissible. The declared 7% margin was accepted as reasonable, emphasizing limits on ad-hoc profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that reopening based only on generalized information about a scrip, without independent inquiry or linkage to the taxpayer, is invalid. Entire addition on alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
The High Court stayed reassessment proceedings after noting that the legality of Section 148 notices is under consideration before the Supreme Court. The key takeaway is that proceedings must await the apex court’s final ruling.
The Tribunal examined whether a penalty could survive despite an allegedly vague notice. It held that since the assessment order and later notices clearly specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was valid.
The High Court held that jewellery seized during a search cannot be retained once tax liability is fully settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Continued detention after issuance of Form-5 was declared illegal.
The Court examined a reassessment initiation where the assessee was given less than 24 hours to respond. Holding this to be contrary to Section 148A(b) and natural justice, the order and notice were quashed.
The Court held that reassessment is not barred by change of opinion where the original issue was dropped due to absence of evidence. Subsequent reopening based on new material was found legally sustainable.
