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 found that reopening relied on wrong bank deposits, incorrect assessee details, and a mechanical sanction under section 151. The reassessment under sections 144/147 and the ₹15 lakh unexplained cash addition were deleted.
Karnataka High Court quashed several notices, assessment orders, and bank garnishments issued under sections 148A, 147, 156, and 226(3), allowing the cooperative federation’s petition.
ITAT Mumbai condoned 75-day delay in filing appeal, recognizing assessee’s illiteracy and reliance on tax consultant, allowing fresh adjudication on merits.
AO treated ₹13 lakh cash deposits as unexplained, but ITAT found all deposits supported by cash book and bank self-cheques. Entire addition under section 68 was deleted.
ITAT held reassessment invalid where AO acted on belated return without issuing mandatory 143(2) notice. Entire reassessment under sections 144/147 was quashed despite late filing of return.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 11.26 crore LTCG, noting the unregistered JDA could not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47)(v). Taxability arises only upon registration and statutory approvals.
Tribunal found the appellate order non-speaking, failing to consider multiple submissions including 54F claims and compensation deductions. The matter is remanded for comprehensive review and proper opportunity of hearing.
With all Section 68 additions deleted across the three years, the basis for penalties under Section 271(1)(c) disappeared. The Tribunal directed complete removal of penalties, highlighting that concealment cannot be presumed when additions themselves lack merit. The ruling reinforces the principle that penalty proceedings cannot survive defective assessments.
ITAT rules that an additional 54B claim omitted in the original return cannot be mechanically rejected. AO must examine the claim on merits, verifying capital gains utilisation and statutory conditions.
Tribunal invalidates reassessment where AO relied on incorrect data and PCIT granted mere Yes approval. Highlights importance of independent application of mind under Sections 147/148/151.
