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 holds that the temples bona fide belief in statutory exemption justified a 607-day delay. Assessments and penalties are remanded for fresh review considering exemption applicability.
ITAT Chandigarh held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO violated statutory provisions, quashing the assessment for AY 2018-19.
ITAT Hyderabad held that cancellation of registration granted to appellant-society u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act not justifiable since conditions precedent for cancellation of registration u/s. 12AB(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Act not satisfied.
Gujarat HC quashed a Section 148 notice issued after permissible surviving time, ruling it time-barred under Supreme Court guidelines in Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal.
The ITAT Delhi annulled a reassessment after finding that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer without jurisdiction, rendering the entire proceeding invalid in law.
The Tribunal ruled that once an assessment under Section 153A is approved under Section 153D, it cannot be revised under Section 263. This reinforces limits on PCIT’s revisional powers.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 148 was invalid as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, affirming the CIT(A)’s order.
ITAT ruled that additions based on property purchase were invalid as the lower authorities ignored documented sources of funds, confirming that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that investment in agricultural land in a spouse’s name qualifies for deduction under Section 54B, following Rajasthan High Court precedent.
The Tribunal ruled that a Section 148 notice issued after six years from AY 2013–14 was invalid, quashing the reassessment and additions under Section 54F.
