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...
ITAT Chennai ruled that a delay in property registration due to the builder cannot deny a Section 54 deduction if the capital gains were reinvested on time. Timely payments, not registration, are the key requirement.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT held that reopening of assessment under Section 148 is invalid if no fresh material emerges. Key takeaway: AO cannot reopen concluded assessments on pre-existing facts.
ITAT Chennai quashed a reassessment notice under Section 148, holding that an Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment based solely on a change of opinion without fresh tangible material. This safeguards taxpayers from arbitrary reassessments.
The Tribunal ruled that issuing a Section 143(2) notice before communicating reasons for reopening deprives the assessee of its statutory right to object. This violation invalidated the entire reassessment for the second year. The decision underscores that procedural fairness in reopening is a statutory mandate, not optional.
ITAT Delhi held that the addition of Rs. 73,99,475 as LTCG under Section 10(38) was unjustified, as the assessee provided complete evidence and no direct link to alleged bogus transactions was established.
Tribunal held that an unsigned 143(2) notice violates Section 282A(1), making reassessment void. Ruling confirms that signature is mandatory and cannot be cured under Section 292B.
The assessee furnished PANs, bank statements, and confirmations proving the genuineness of share capital and loan transactions, leading to dismissal of the Revenue appeal. Both CIT(A) and Tribunal confirmed that repayment and identity verification are sufficient. This reinforces legal certainty in documented transactions under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the loan could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished complete documentary evidence. The authorities failed to conduct further inquiry or rebut the lender’s confirmation. The ruling emphasizes that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely on suspicion.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash credit cannot be added under Section 68 when the assessee furnishes full documentation, setting aside the addition of ₹15 lakh and related interest disallowance.
