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...
Mumbai ITAT ruled that retracted statements of a third-party transporter cannot justify additions without corroborative material. Detailed invoices, delivery challans, and proof of goods movement demonstrated genuine business expenses, resulting in dismissal of Revenue appeals.
ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after the surviving period, as clarified by Rajeev Bansal, are time-barred for AY 2015-16. The ruling emphasizes that procedural compliance with limitation periods is mandatory, even if notices are issued under unamended law.
The Tribunal emphasized that for notices issued before 01.04.2021, the sanctioning power rested solely with the JCIT, making the PCIT’s approval invalid. Consequently, the ₹82.89 crore disallowance and all further proceedings were set aside.
The court upheld the trial court’s decision permitting the Income Tax Department to place additional notices on record. Key takeaway: Section 91 Cr.P.C. may be invoked at any stage for documents necessary for fair adjudication.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer was invalid, resulting in the reassessment order being set aside.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening assessment beyond four years is invalid when all material facts were disclosed. Depreciation claims on Slump Sale assets remain intact.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee’s own ledger reflected a creditor’s write-off, Section 41(1) was automatically triggered. The waiver in books = taxable cessation of liability.
The Court found that reassessment must proceed through the faceless regime and not through a jurisdictional officer. Since the notice was issued in breach of this mandate, both the notice and assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that employer-provided business advances cannot be classified as income under Section 69A without proper verification, remanding the case for limited review of TDS and expense records.
The Tribunal found that even a belated return filed in response to a Section 148 notice remains a valid return requiring a 143(2) notice. Because this mandatory notice was never issued, the reassessment order was declared illegal and set aside.
