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 ITAT restored the case for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee filed a return showing a loss and was not given proper opportunity to be heard before dismissal of appeal.
ITAT remanded penalty proceedings to CIT(A) as the underlying quantum of income addition is pending adjudication, directing fresh consideration post-quantum decision.
The Tribunal held that reassessment fails in law when the AO drops the original reason for reopening and makes an unrelated addition, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to grant the minimum seven days’ time under section 148A(b), making the entire process unsustainable.
Holding the issue covered by binding precedent, the Court ruled that reassessment proceedings not conducted in a faceless manner are unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational notice for reassessment was invalid, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAC could not stand and was quashed.
High Court held that reassessment notices issued without adopting the faceless mechanism prescribed under the statutory scheme were invalid, vitiating all consequential proceedings.
The court held that notices meant to be issued by a Faceless Assessment Officer cannot be validly issued by a Jurisdictional Officer, quashing the notices while keeping Revenue’s rights open.
The assessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO post-29.03.2022 violated the faceless assessment scheme, making the income addition void. The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
Karnataka HC held that a notice under Section 148A(b) providing less than the statutory seven days is void. All consequential assessments, penalties, and demands were quashed as a result.
