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...
Delhi High Court rules ITSC applications filed until March 31, 2021, are valid and must be treated as pending. Retrospective cut-off of February 1, 2021, is arbitrary, violating Article 14.
Judicial ruling confirms that investment source for property purchased by a homemaker was genuine. The ITAT found that the entire consideration had a clear trail from the son’s account, reversing the mechanical addition made by lower authorities.
Issuance of a valid notice under section 143(2) was mandatory and non-issuance or belated issuance vitiated the assessment. Accordingly, Tribunal quashed the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B as being void ab initio.
Reassessment order passed under Section 147/143(3) was quashed on the ground that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued after the assessee filed the return in response to notice under Section 148, rendering the assessment void ab initio.
ITAT, Pune, ruled in Manisha Dhananjay Holkar vs. ITO that CIT (Appeals) [CIT(A)] cannot dismiss an appeal solely due to appellant’s non-appearance.
Delhi High Court dismisses petitions, reiterating that both Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officers (FAO) have concurrent jurisdiction to issue Section 148 reassessment notices, holding prior High Court ruling (T.K.S. Builders) is binding.
ITAT Chennai held that interest received on enhanced compensation forms part of the compensation and hence entitled for exemption under section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly, not taxable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court held that under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and Faceless Assessing Officer possess concurrent jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices, reaffirming its earlier ruling in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Reiterating its view from K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi HC held that both Jurisdictional and Faceless Assessing Officers have concurrent powers to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Neena Wadhwa v. PCIT upholds the concurrent power of both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) to issue reassessment notices under Section 148, citing the binding precedent of T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd..
