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 Tribunal followed the Supreme Court’s V.C. Shukla principle, reaffirming that loose papers seized from third parties are without evidentiary value unless properly linked to the assessee through verified facts. ITAT, therefore, quashed both the 69A addition and the underlying 147 reopening as being based on mere surmises and conjectures.
This ruling underscores the requirement for independent verification of uncorroborated search material, deleting additions made for unexplained cash under Section 69A and Capital Gains based on an employee’s diary. ITAT’s decision confirms that mere suspicion or rough personal notings, full of inconsistencies, cannot be the foundation for substantial tax demands.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the denial of the right to cross-examine a third party whose statement forms the foundation of a tax addition constitutes a serious violation of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court. The Tribunal set aside the 68 additions of 1.56 crore (across two years) and remanded the case to the AO for de novo assessment with mandatory opportunity for cross-examination.
The Delhi High Court set aside a reassessment notice and the corresponding order under Section 148A(3) because its basis was the incorrect assessment year for a major transaction. The Court, in the interest of fairness, remanded the matter, directing the AO to provide a fresh hearing after the taxpayer files documents proving the transaction occurred in AY 2018-19, not the reopened AY 2019-20.
This decision reinforces the legal requirement that supervisory approval under Section 153D is a substantive safeguard, not an empty ritual. The High Court affirmed that granting blanket sanction to 246 assessments through a generic endorsement is equivalent to a mechanical approval that fails to satisfy legislative intent.
The Ahmedabad ITAT has struck down reassessment orders against Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, holding that the AO’s reliance solely on an ACB disproportionate assets report without independent application of mind or specifying escaped income is “borrowed satisfaction,” invalidating the Section 147 jurisdiction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, upheld the addition of ₹19.06 Cr (AY 2011-12) and ₹17.53 Cr (AY 2012-13) to Raheja Developers Limited’s income. The ITAT confirmed the finding that the sale of 22 shops to M/s Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) was a bogus transaction involving a shell company to route the developer’s own unaccounted funds back into its books as sale consideration.
The ITAT granted complete relief, holding that the date of allotment of the new industrial plot, not the date of registration, is the relevant date of purchase for the Section 54G capital gains exemption. Furthermore, the court confirmed that the transfer of industrial property from Delhi (Urban) to Ghaziabad (Non-Urban) qualified for the full shifting exemption.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that an appeal cannot be dismissed merely because the assessment was framed under an old PAN and the appeal filed under a new, active PAN. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case to the AO to verify the source of cash deposits of Rs. 85.31 lakh, allowing the assessee to prove the amounts were already accounted for as business receipts.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
