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...
Rejecting assessee’s plea of invalid reopening, Tribunal ruled that minor clerical mistakes in reasons recorded under Section 147 do not vitiate proceedings if substantive material exists. Information disseminated through Insight Portal was sufficient to establish AO’s belief.
The ITAT restored the ₹1.11 Cr capital gains addition for the sale of alleged agricultural land back to the AO for fresh verification. The matter was sent back due to the assessee’s non-compliance and non-submission of evidence in prior proceedings.
ITAT Delhi upheld reassessment on an individual for AY 2017-18, finding that existence of dual PANs and huge undisclosed demonetization cash deposits constituted tangible material. Tribunal confirmed that sufficiency of material is irrelevant at reopening stage, only prima facie belief matters when notice is issued within four years.
ITAT Indore held that Deemed Dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is not taxable in hands of borrower-company who doesn’t hold shares in lender-company. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition set aside.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 were void as notices were not validly served and proper approval from PCCIT was not obtained.
Bombay High Court set aside reassessment proceedings for AY 2016–17 as the sanction was granted by an unauthorized officer, holding that approval must come from senior authorities under Section 151(ii).
Bombay High Court held that reassessment for AY 2016–17 was invalid as the sanction was not obtained from the competent authority mandated under Section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the deletion of a ₹65 lakh addition under Section 68 was proper because the taxpayer established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal accepted that the loans were received and repaid through banking channels, backed by confirmations, bank statements, and audited financials.
An assessment adding ₹17.62 lakh was annulled as the income was below ₹50 lakh, limiting the period to three years under Section 149(1)(a). The Tribunal held the notice was time-barred as it was reissued after the statutory period’s surviving time of one day expired.
Delhi HC ruled that date of electronic upload of DRP directions on ITBA is date of receipt under Section 144C(13). AO’s final order passed a day late was held invalid, reaffirming that physical delivery is irrelevant once uploaded.
