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...
The Tribunal ruled that once the original notice itself is jurisdictionally invalid, later compliance with section 148A is irrelevant. Foundational defects cannot be remedied procedurally.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not disputed, the entire value of alleged bogus purchases cannot be added under section 69C. Only the embedded profit element is taxable.
The Tribunal ruled that AMP expenses incurred by a brand-owning trader cannot be allocated to contract manufacturers without proof of obligation or agreement. Tax incentives enjoyed by related entities alone were held insufficient.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless scheme became mandatory was invalid. The key takeaway is that failure to follow the faceless mechanism nullifies the entire reopening, regardless of merits.
ITAT held that dismissing a ground without reasons violates appellate duty. The 43B disallowance was remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication.
The judgment reiterates that reassessment cannot be initiated merely because the AO takes a different view later. Jurisdictional limits under tax law were strictly enforced.
The court held that reopening after four years based on a different view of the same expenditure amounts to a change of opinion. Absence of failure to disclose material facts made the reassessment invalid.
The ruling reiterates that reassessment after four years requires a clear failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Absence of such failure rendered the notice unsustainable.
The court held that reopening beyond four years is invalid when the recorded reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. Full disclosure by the assessee barred reassessment.
The ruling confirms that reassessment based on investigation inputs cannot proceed without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Prior scrutiny of share capital defeated the reopening.
