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...
The ITAT confirmed the reopening u/s 147/148 beyond the four-year limit was valid, as information from the wife’s assessment about the joint account constituted a new and tangible reason to believe income escaped. Despite upholding the reopening, the Tribunal granted significant taxpayer relief by accepting documentary evidence for property-related transactions and reducing the addition to a minimal amount.
The Court held that the entire series of reassessment actions, including the final assessment and penalty notices, were bad in law because the initiating notices were issued by the wrong authority, violating Section 151A. This quashing emphasizes the mandatory nature of the faceless assessment protocol, unless the Supreme Court later validates the department’s action.
The ITAT Pune ruled that a reassessment initiated under sec.147/148, even for non-filers who later filed a return, is void ab initio if the mandatory 143(2) notice is not issued. The Tribunal set aside the cash deposit addition and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, reinforcing that 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement.
Judicial precedent from Karnataka HC confirms that Assessing Officer must provide not less than seven days to an assessee to respond to a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). Failure to comply renders the notice and all subsequent reassessment steps, including the order and penalty notice, invalid.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, declaring the reassessment order and all related penalty notices for AY 2016-17 invalid because the initial proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdictional approval under Section 151A. The judgment underscores the critical nature of procedural integrity in faceless assessments, reserving the right for the department to reinstate the case based on a future Supreme Court ruling.
Karnataka High Court set aside reassessment proceedings for AY 2020-21, ruling the jurisdictional Assessing Officer acted beyond the scope of Section 151A (Faceless Assessment). The decision reinforces that reassessment notices must strictly follow the procedural mandate of the faceless regime, though the Revenue retains the liberty to revive the case if the Supreme Court validates the procedure.
The ITAT Pune quashed reassessment proceedings, ruling them void ab initio because the requisite approval under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT). This failure to follow the mandatory jurisdictional hierarchy for notices issued after three years vitiated the entire reopening.
ITAT Amritsar condoned the 146-day delay in a senior citizen’s appeal, accepting passport evidence of her absence from India as sufficient cause, and remanded the case for fresh assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that sales made to Jyoti Products were genuine, supported by ledgers and invoices. The 25% disallowance by the AO under Section 37 was deleted, as Section 37 applies only to business expenditure, not sales transactions.
ITAT Raipur held that matter regarding unexplained money addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act restored back as basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions not satisfactorily explained.
