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 ITAT held that the AO could not deny TDR cost in both AY 2018–19 and AY 2020–21, directing allowance of the deduction. Authorities cannot blow hot and cold on the same issue across years.
ITAT Delhi set aside reassessment because notices under Sections 148, 148A(b), and 148A(d) lacked digital or manual signatures. Procedural lapses can invalidate reassessments entirely.
An addition of ₹1 crore under section 68 was challenged on the ground that the assessee had no opportunity to produce supporting documents. The matter was remanded to the AO for de novo assessment, keeping all contentions open.
The ITAT ruled a reassessment under Section 147 invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to issue the mandatory Section 143(2) notice. compliance with notice requirements is crucial for valid reassessment.
The Tribunal held that unexplained money addition cannot stand when the AO ignores direct verification from the bank. Matter restored to the AO to summon the bank and tax only actual interest income.
The Tribunal found that a fixed-deposit mismatch caused an unjustified ₹5.33-crore addition. Delay was condoned and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment with proper verification.
ITAT Chennai held that a Section 148 notice issued by JAO after 29.03.2022 is invalid, as the faceless assessment scheme is mandatory, nullifying the reassessment order.
Chennai ITAT ruled that a 148 notice issued by JAO post-CBDT faceless scheme notification is invalid, quashing reassessment and penalty. The tribunal confirmed that only notices issued by the Faceless Assessment Unit are legally valid.
ITAT Chennai annulled the Section 148-based reassessment for AY 2018-19 because the notice contravened the e-assessment scheme under Sec.151A. The ruling reinforces mandatory compliance with faceless notice issuance.
ITAT Pune held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate key legal grounds, including wrong AO jurisdiction and missing Document Identification Number. Entire order under Section 144 r.w.s. 263 was set aside for reconsideration with proper hearing.
