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...
Assessee proved long-term capital gains of ₹1 crore from Mishkafin Finance shares via broker notes, bank statements, and STT-paid transactions. Addition under section 69A was deleted due to lack of evidence.
ITAT held that Section 263 requires the PCIT to conduct independent inquiry before declaring an order erroneous. Since the PCIT relied only on assumptions of inadequate inquiry, the revision was invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment cannot be added without confronting the assessee with the Koinex transaction data relied upon by the AO. Matter remanded for fresh verification.
ITAT holds that ignoring a valid online reply and supporting records vitiates reassessment; AO must first verify whether deposits were already in books before taxing. Key takeaway: non-consideration of evidence makes additions unsustainable.
Tribunal holds that the CBDT circular exempting commercial transactions was wrongly ignored; AO must re-verify if the shareholder loan was a genuine business accommodation before taxing under Section 2(22)(e).
The ITAT held that notices under Section 148 issued by JAO post-29.03.2022 lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment was annulled, emphasizing only Faceless Assessing Officers can issue such notices.
The Tribunal condoned a 28-day delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The assessee had failed to comply with notices and did not provide evidence for deductions. All additions made by the Assessing Officer, including capital gains and salary income, were upheld.
The Tribunal held that donations to an institution whose approval was withdrawn retrospectively cannot qualify for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii). Reopening was upheld, and bona fide belief offered no protection.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to challenge both the reopening notice u/s 148 and the addition of ₹2.25 Cr. NFAC’s ex-parte dismissal was found inappropriate in the interest of justice.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued manually by the JAO violates the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal ruled that any Section 148 or 148A notice must originate only from the faceless system, making the JAO-issued notice invalid.
