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...
AO must apply their own mind to the contents of the DVO report and any other available material as relying solely on a DVO’s report without any independent inquiry or satisfaction was a fundamental jurisdictional flaw that invalidated the entire reassessment proceeding from the start.
Delhi High Court set aside notice under Sections 148A(3) & 148 when petitioner’s objections and documents were not considered before reopening for AY 2019-20.
The Mumbai ITAT partly allowed Trustar Diamond’s appeal, reducing the addition on alleged bogus diamond purchases from 12.5% to 3% to maintain consistency with the assessee’s previous assessment years. The court noted that sales figures were accepted and the 3% restriction reflected the historical disallowance pattern.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition by Backbone Projects Limited, upholding the reopening of assessment based on fresh, credible information from investigating wings detailing the receipt of ₹1.25 crore in bogus accommodation entries. The court ruled that mere production of documents does not constitute a full and true disclosure when transactions are later found to be false.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of stale information results into change of opinion and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and reopening is quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment in property under Section 69A. The tribunal noted that being an NRI, the assessee could not access required documents in time, warranting reconsideration by the AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad remitted the case back to the AO after CIT(A) upheld an addition of ₹2.47 crore as unexplained share capital. The assessee had provided detailed bank records, personal books, and PAN/ITR proofs which were ignored, violating principles of natural justice.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2014–15 were time-barred and quashed notices and orders issued under Sections 148 and 148A.
The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment notice and order against Sarthak Gupta for AY 2014–15, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal.
Court stayed reassessment notices issued under Section 148, holding that proceedings must comply with the amended faceless regime under the Finance Act, 2021.
