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 condoned the delayed appeal filing after finding sufficient cause and allowed the matter to proceed. It also clarified that reassessment jurisdiction remains valid despite arguments regarding faceless assessment provisions.
The ITAT ruled that deduction of TDS does not excuse failure to file an income tax return. The decision emphasizes that income discovered through departmental records can attract penalty for under-reporting under Section 270A.
The Delhi ITAT held that additions made on transactions unrelated to the reasons recorded for reopening were beyond the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction. The reassessment addition was therefore deleted.
The Bangalore ITAT held that ambiguity in the penalty proceedings rendered the levy unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with the statutory framework under Section 270A.
The ITAT condoned the delay after finding that assessment and appellate notices were sent to incorrect email addresses. The ruling highlights the importance of valid service of notices in tax proceedings.
The Delhi ITAT held that the full value of unaccounted sales cannot automatically be treated as taxable income. It restricted the addition to an estimated profit element of 3% on the sales detected during the search.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the Assessing Officer made additions unrelated to the reasons initially recorded for reopening. The consequential penalty proceedings were also set aside.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to issue notice under Section 143(2). The decision confirms that compliance with this statutory requirement is indispensable in reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment after finding that the assessee had already filed the return under Section 139 before issuance of the notice. The key takeaway is that jurisdiction under Section 147 cannot be assumed on erroneous facts.
The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue cannot assess the full transaction value in the hands of a confirming party absent proof of beneficial ownership. The decision underscores the importance of establishing actual receipt of consideration.
