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 Bangalore upheld the CIT(A)’s decision that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 were barred by limitation. The Tribunal found no error in relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling on reassessment timelines.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the recorded reasons for reopening were undated and failed to establish compliance with Section 148 requirements. The assessment was quashed as a jurisdictional defect.
ITAT Delhi set aside a reassessment after holding that the ACIT lacked jurisdiction to issue a Section 148 notice. The Tribunal found that the assessee’s returned income was below the CBDT threshold requiring jurisdiction to remain with the ITO.
The ITAT Kolkata found that the assessees share capital remained unchanged throughout the year and no fresh capital was received. As a result, the addition under Section 68 for alleged unexplained share capital was deleted.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing appeals was justified where the assessee had shifted to a new PAN and filed returns under it. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that deposits received and remitted by the assessee as a Bank of India business correspondent could not be treated as unexplained money. The addition of ₹2.31 crore under Section 69A was therefore deleted.
The Supreme Court declined to examine the Revenue’s challenge after noting that an intra-court appeal remedy existed under the Karnataka High Court Act. The merits of the assessment dispute were left open.
Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since statutory threshold of ₹50 lakh was not met, reassessment was quashed.
ITAT Surat held that the entire investment amount could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished supporting records relating to agricultural income and other sources. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the disputed amount and granted substantial relief.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the property could not have been transferred without compensating the occupants. The related payments were therefore held deductible from the sale consideration for capital gains purposes.
